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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – the government may have overstated the danger of Covid at the start of the pandemic May have overstated. May!?!
Chief medical officer Chris Whitty has admitted that the government may have overstated the danger of Covid at the start of the pandemic.
Well, it’s a start, I suppose. However, they massively overstated it, destroyed our liberties and economy on the basis of their own panic and inability to follow through with a sensible, rational plan that was already in place. No may about it. They did. Big time and every one of the fuckers should be doing jail time including Half-Whitty.
– Longrider, with whom I agree entirely. There needs to be professional, financial and social consequences or nothing changes. Instead, the fuckers get knighted.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Whitty is a liar. But it seems the reward for lying on behalf of the British state is to get yourself a ‘KCB’.
COVID-19 was of course discussed on Samizdata back in the day. And, now it’s emerged that some of the trials used to discredit hydroxychloroquine were fraudulent, and have been retracted.
Watch that space.
Chris Whitty and Patrick Valance, the chief scientific advisers, at first opposed lockdowns – and then supported them, that change has never been explained. There was never any evidence that the lockdown policy would save lives – so what was the motive for this international policy?
It was not even a “proper” lockdown – as we were allowed out of our homes once a day, we went to the supermarket (some of the only shops to be allowed to remain open – although there were some oddities in the regulations, for example bicycle shops remained open – there were many pages of regulations, it is not possible to believe that the regulations were written in response to Covid, there was not enough time for that – so the regulations must have been written before hand – for some other purpose) and at first there were no masks or screens in the supermarket.
Please think about that – there were, for quite a long time, no masks or screens at the supermarket – so even if these things worked (they do NOT work) they were not there. So we all lined up and paid people at the checkouts – if this was the sort of disease we were told it was, why did the checkout staff not all die, and why did the people lining up (the “distancing” thing was silly nonsense) not die as well?
If one thinks about the matter – it is obvious that this sort of lockdown would do nothing to stop the spread of a virus (see above), so what was the purpose of the lockdown?
Covid certainly existed, I am against people who deny the existence of the disease, and there were generally effective Early Treatments for the disease.
Why were these generally effective Early Treatments not generally used? Why were they attacked, indeed smeared, in the media (including the medical media – such as the infamous “study” in the Lancet)? And why were doctors who saved lives (yes saved lives) in the United States punished and persecuted?
As for the injection policy – it is obvious that the injections were not very effective (to call them “vaccines” is not accurate) and they were certainly not “safe”.
Why has there been no public apology for the injection policy? No apology to the injured or to the families of the dead?
Indeed I remember Prime Minister Sunak saying in the House of Commons, only a few months ago, “I can categorically state that the Covid vaccines are safe” – by that time it was obvious that they were not safe.
So Mr Sunak was not making an honest mistake, remember his statement was in 2024 not 2021, – he was lying, lying about matters of life and death.
Why has Mr Sunak not been punished for lying to the House of Commons?
There is also the bizarre attitude of much of the public – they seemed to hate people who told them the truth (for example a doctor in California who saved many lives got lots of HATE for “dividing our community”) and love people who lied to them.
Remember that exchange in the House of Commons a few months ago – the man who said, correctly, that the Covid injections were not safe, Andrew Bridgen, is no longer in the House of Commons, he was voted out, but the man who lied (lied about matters of life and death) Mr Sunak, was re elected in July – he is still a Member of the House of Commons.
Lying had no bad consequences, whereas telling the truth led to the end of life in public affairs.
And people ask why politicians choose to lie rather than tell the truth.
Yes politicians, like other human beings, have free will – we can choose to tell the truth (overcome the temptation, the “passion”, to lie), but that often means suffering terrible consequences (and not just if someone tells the truth about Covid – there are terrible consequences for telling the truth about lots of other matters as well) – so it is to the advantage of politicians not to tell the truth, perhaps not to directly lie (as Mr Sunak clearly did – he-lied), but to use words that avoid telling the truth whilst not actually lying.
For example, Prime Minister Sunak could have said (in response to the question about the Covid injections) “at every point the government has followed expert advice” – or some other form of words that were NOT a lie.
APL – yes lying is rewarded, not just politicians who lie but also scientists who lie.
As for Early Treatment – one must be careful to remember that a combination of medications (all well established medications – which had been in use, for other diseases, for many years) worked best, see such groups as “America’s Front Line Doctors” (many of whom suffered punishment and persecution for telling the truth – for keeping their medical oath rather than breaking it) for details – and always (if possible) get qualified medical advice for your individual case.
As for why Early Treatment was attacked, indeed smeared (“horse poison” “Trump wants you to drink bleach” and the other absurd LIES of the media), by the media and the scientific establishment – the reason appears to have been to get Emergency Authorisation for the injections.
But why was the establishment so fanatical about injecting the population with dangerous experimental medications?
Paul writes, “But why was the establishment so fanatical about injecting the population with dangerous experimental medications?”
That was the question on my lips right from the first, then the banning of alternative treatment made me realise that somethig was odd; something not right. Then there was the non-completion of Phase 3 trials.
I wrote to my Doctor expressing my doubts and refused the jabs until the trial was completed and the results were published.
I received no reply, then nor later.
Screens did not work, and were implicated in:
(1) impeding the free flow of ventilation and potentially allowing the build up of fictional COVID-19 agents in the immediate vicinity. Thus promoting contagion.
(2) Caused a large and completely unnecessary economic burden on businesses already struggling to cope with the insane and counterproductive regulations.
(3) Masks did not work as a measure to restrict transmission of the fictional COVID-19 virus.
I’ve suggested that COVID-19 was a fiction. What was very real was the hysteria generated by the British government to terrorise its own population.
“from their own panic”
By their actions in flouting the lock-down and mask-up edicts they imposed on everyone else, they did not feel any panic themselves. Instead of panic, what they felt was glee over the glorious opportunity to gin up a crisis and determination to not let that crisis go to waste.
Deep Lurker says (rightly!), “…what they felt was glee…”
I’d re-phrase this along these lines, as I’m sure other already have:
Assume for a minute that those imposing the COVID restrictions on movement, assembly, closed businesses and churches, etc. knew these restrictions were hugely unnecessary, a massive over reaction.
Next, generate a conservative estimate of the lives that this cost from economic losses, people not seeking cancer therapies (or not being allowed to!) and the damage to children (teen suicides). 100,000? 10,000,000? I really don’t know but it’s more than six.
Whoever can be proven to be responsible for such should not be fined, they should not be jailed…they should be executed for mass murder.
Responsible not just for what they did but the fact that they knew from the get-go it was all completely unnecessary.
A couple hundred such executions should get the message across.
What is wrong with this reasoning? …apart from the challenge of gaining political support for it.
GregWA
Grim indeed Sir – money mad people (like me) are apt to fixate on the financial losses of the insane policies, almost 400 Billion Pounds (“not much if you say it quick” – these financial losses have helped cripple this country) – but you rightly point out the human losses, the losses of human lives caused by the insane policies, I should have and I did not.
Deep Lurker – so it appears, at least with some of the international elite – such as Mr Gates (who Mr Cummings really followed – I remember listening to an interview with Dominic Cummings, who undermined Prime Minister Johnson whilst working for him, and Mr Cummings openly admitted that he, Mr Cummings, pushed for the insane, and wicked, lockdowns because that is what Mr Gates advised – Mr Gates has no medical qualifications, indeed no qualifications of any kind, other than lots and lots of MONEY).
APL – very informative, yes quite so.
JohnM – your doctor clearly feared PUNISHMENT, doctors who told the truth were often persecuted (both here and in the United States).
Hopefully, you do not have high blood pressure and a speck in your right eye – which I now do (and have since a little while after I made a very bad decision – having received very bad medical advice). I had an interesting evening here at home a couple of years ago now, I have never recovered and never will.
My fault.
According to the newspapers (specifically the Daily Mail) this morning – Prime Minister Johnson is still away with the Elves and Pixies when it comes to Covid.
He supposedly writes in his new book that he considered sending the British armed forces to take, by force, Covid “vaccines” from the Netherlands.
This would have been act of war against a NATO ally – quite insane, although not as insane as supporting a war with a power with lots of thermonuclear weapons – a line of conduct which Mr Johnson also supports. If a country is allowed into NATO, Article Five of the NATO charter applies – that means World War III, thermonuclear war.
What Covid “vaccine” was Mr Johnson considering taking by armed violence?
The AstraZeneca stuff – the injections that were quietly stopped because they led to blood clots (which can cripple or kill) and other health problems – as I know rather well.
It appears that even now Mr Johnson has no idea at all about Covid – Early Treatment, the dangers of the “vaccines”, or anything else.
It is like talking to a mainstream journalist about rigged elections in 2020 or 2022, or the FBI January 6th 2021 False Flag operation – they seem incapable (as Mr Johnson is) of taking in information that is not from an establishment source.
You can point to FBI whistle blowers giving testimony, on oath, before the House of Representatives- and the journalist (like Mr Johnson) will go blind and deaf.
Ditto if you point to highly qualified medical doctors and medical scientists giving testimony (again on oath) before Congress and before State Legislatures.
Again journalists (like Mr Johnson) appear to be unable to see or hear highly qualified doctors and medical scientists when these people talk about how there were effective Early Treatments for Covid, or when these people talk about the dangers of the injections.
And, to be fair to Mr Johnson, the mRNA American injections may turn out to be more (more – not less) dangerous than the AstraZeneca injections.
One of the grimmer stories of Tony Heller (a geologist who has been exposing data tampering in the “Climate Science” bureaucracy for many years) was when he was invited to testify before a State Legislature.
The media (all of them – they operate as a hive-mind) just reported than a “Climate Denier” had testified for hours – they complained, in their articles, about the terrible crime the State Legislature had supposedly committed by inviting him to give evidence.
It did not occur to any of the journalists, not one of them, to report anything-he-had-said.
It really was as if they were all deaf and blind – and could not hear what he was saying, or see the graphs and slides.
But then a crowd of people can chant “Fed! Fed! Fed!” at Mr Ray Epps when he suggested entering the Capitol building – and all the journalists will say they heard nothing, and if you play them the recording they will still say they see and hear nothing.
The Covid mess is, I believe, part of a much larger mess.
The increase in statism, the decline of liberty, over the last 150 years.
In the United Kingdom statism has certainly been on the rise since 1875 (yes I know – that is 149 years of declining liberty, not 150 years – but let us not be pedantic), but WHY has it been on the rise?
Why has the size of government (even as a proportion of the economy) and the scope of government (the regulations) grown over the last century and half – in the United Kingdom and most other countries?
There was no reason to suppose that more government spending and regulations would make things better than-they-otherwise-would-be, and plenty of reason to suppose that more government spending and regulations would slow-up improvement in society (make things worse than-they-otherwise-would-be).
This was pointed out by Herbert Spencer in “Man Versus the State” (1883) – his arguments were crushing, but they-had-no-effect.
It was not that the Labour Theory of Value justified statism – after all it was refuted at the start of the 1870s (actually it had been refuted long before, by many economists – but even the die-hards abandoned the Labour Theory of Value after Carl Menger and co had torn it apart).
And David Ricardo’s and Henry George’s idea of a “good tax” (a tax on land) was refuted by Frank Fetter – who showed that there was no such thing as a “good tax” to finance government spending with, that a land tax was just as bad as other taxes.
So why the rise of statism – why?
When John Morley explained to the young Winston Churchill that more “Social Reform”, i.e. more statism (more decline of liberty) would NOT make things better than they otherwise would be, but would (in fact) make things worse than they otherwise would be – Mr Churchill had no counter arguments.
Yet he carried on with “Social Reform” as did politicians and administrators all over the world – and they carry on still.
At this point I am supposed to come up with some brilliant solution as to why statism keeps rising (why liberty keeps declining) over the last century and a half – but I have none today.
Perhaps I am just too old to work it out.
It’s quite simple, Paul. Statism wins votes (and go beggar the consequences)
We ought not go down that “Covid wasn’t real, wasn’t dangerous to anyone” path.
Worked with a relative who admins care homes to design and build some structure that allowed for a basic quarantine for some ungodly-old and unhealthy people, to keep them alive.
Even with that, they went from losing one or two residents a month to losing multiples every day for months.
It was indeed a serious illness for people already on the cusp of death.
(But, in fairness, having seen and met some of those oldsters, the death toll from Covid had more to do with how we’re able to keep people clinging to life much longer, but very tenuously, compared to just 15-20 years ago. Back then, most of these people wouldn’t have been alive long enough to get Covid anyway.)
WindyPants – no, it is not that simple.
As Douglas Carswell (a former Member of Parliament – and an historian of British politics) was fond of pointing out, none of the main ideas of increasing the size and scope of government were pushed to win votes, the public actually had to be taught (sometimes over a long period of time) to accept the statism. In every major case the establishment elite (in the United Kingdom or some other country) came up with ideas of statism (spending and/or regulations) and fanatically pushed these schemes – the question is why?
bobby b – agreed Sir.
Covid most certainly existed and did kill people – although not as many people as was claimed.
The real scandals were the covering up of the creation of Covid in the Wuhan lab (from which it either accidently escaped or was deliberately released) – a place that was part funded by the American government and involved the “Eco Health Alliance”.
And then people, such as Dr Fauci and (also) the World Health Organisation claiming that Covid was not a threat – before suddenly turning round 180 degrees and becoming hysterical.
Then there was systematic smearing of Early Treatments – a tidal wave of lies (invented by the international establishment – and spread by the media) which helped prevent many people being saved by Early Treatments – costing many lives.
And the insane “lockdowns” – which were clearly planned to do damage to society, not to reduce the spread of the disease (see my previous comment on this matter – how we were crowded into supermarkets and so on). In California what business enterprises were closed and what were allowed to remain open was blatantly POLITICAL – with “Woke” leftist Corporations (such as the Hollywood types) being treated much better than business enterprises known to be (or thought to be) conservative.
The international policy appears to have been to undermine independent business enterprises – and to concentrate the economy under vast Corporations who are “partners” of the government – with Covid (although, yes, it most certainly existed) being used as an excuse – much as C02 is used as a excuse for the same objective.
Lastly the “vaccines” – which were not (by the traditional definition of the word) vaccines, and were certainly NOT “safe and effective”.
On the contrary, that’s exactly the path we should tread.
COVID-19 was simply influenza, perhaps, influenza which Fauchi had had modified, but influenza none the less. Then add malicious mis-diagnosis and the incorrect treatment provided, it’s the latter that led to the excessive death rate.
By the way, in the UK ( before the authorities ‘got to’ the ONS) it was apparent that even at the height of the ‘COVID pandemic’ and with all the hysteria and insanity, fewer people died as a result of COVID in 2019/20 than died during the 2013 seasonal influenza outbreak ( UK specific figures ). I wholesale lifted those figures at the time and reproduced them on Samizdata, but none of the intellectuals here bothered to take note. ‘Why on earth are you publishing these figures’. Well, try as you might, some people refuse to be helped.
The whole idea that politicians should deny you access to your own general practitioner, usurp the normal doctor – patient relationship, then give blanket medical advice to an unknown individual, was on its face ludicrous. And it could only have happened in the eye of the hysteria stirred up by the media, with their, ‘everyone is dying every day’, mantra, repeated ad nauseam day after day.
But those are the despicable, hateful people that rule us now.
Bobby b says that well intentioned people who did their best, but acting on false premise given to them by a malignant political class, got higher mortality that they had hoped for.
No shit Sherlock! If you misdiagnose a condition, then mistreat it ( unknowingly mistreat the condition ) because you are acting on the basis of false information. Lots more people will die.
But even with the elevated mortality rate, the political-media complex still attempted to goose the figures, by taking anyone’s misfortune and claiming the victim ‘died with COVID‘.
Evil fuckin’ liars, the lot of ’em. One can’t but help sympathise with the conclusion drawn by GregWA.
Paul, I think this conversation would best be engaged in whilst sitting next to an open fire (which I believe is now banned in newly built homes) in a comfortable wingback chair while sipping a fine glass of Scotch. In short, a very civilised debate.
The main thrust of my argument would be that statism has made a virtue of redistributing wealth and that there will always be more begging bowls than stuffed wallets. In the end, it’s a numbers game. The system encourages you to grab what you can and to hell with the consequences.
I think we’re beyond the point where we can wean our society off government handouts. It’s going to need something severe to change our direction. It seems that much of the first world is now in a position where debt to GDP is at or around 100% with no sign of a change of attitude; how long before it is at 200%?
When does our debt become untenable? unrepayable? unsustainable? What happens then?
Enjoy your whisky. It may well be the last of the good stuff.
Windypants – yes I would like such a discussion.
I would point to Ireland in the 19th century.
Far from following a policy of laissez-faire (as lying modern textbooks claim) the British government actually went for statist scheme after statist scheme.
First there was the national police force in Ireland – there was no such thing in England or Wales at the time.
Then, 1831, there was a system of state schools – because Lord Stanley (later the Earl of Derby) felt it would be a good idea.
Then the Poor Law Tax of 1838 – because Lord Russell thought it was a good idea.
The Irish voters? No one in power gave a damn what the voters thought about anything – even though there were Irish seats in the Westminster Parliament.
It was much the same in India – Governor General after Governor General came in with statist scheme after statist scheme – it was carefully explained that these schemes would cost more than than the benefit they provide (statist schemes always do cost more than they provide) – but it was was done anyway.
But given a whiskey and a good fire I might be convinced of your point of view – we political types are flexible folk.
By the way – I owe Mr Alexander Boris Johnson a partial apology.
Yes – apology.
He has come out and said that he knows that Covid was produced in the Wuhan lab – the lab partly supported by American government agencies and the Eco Heath Alliance (Peter Daszak – also a World Health Organisation person, he actually carried out the investigation – massive conflict of interest, he was basically investigating himself and finding himself innocent).
So Mr Johnson does have a clue -at least about one aspect of Covid.
By the way WindyPants.
I do not mind if you put poison in that whiskey – as long as it does not damage the taste.
I am a failure, it was time I was not about.
People like me are supposed to be the Guardians of Liberty – and I have utterly failed, I do not deserve to be alive.
I think all freeborn citizens are supposed to be defenders of liberty and, to that end, we’re all failures.
I’ll put poison in your whiskey if you like, but I absolutely draw the line at putting ice in it!
You’re not a failure until you quit trying.
WindyPants – ice would indeed be a terrible wrong.
bobby b
I carry on. At this point it is not courage – it is habit.
@WindyPants
I think we’re beyond the point where we can wean our society off government handouts.
I think it is worth pointing out that the people who get the biggest government handouts are the ones with the fattest wallets. It is easy to go after grandma and her social security payment, but we libertarians seem a lot more reluctant to point out that most huge corporations are huge because of government handouts in actual cash or more commonly in kind. I mean forget the obscenities that went with Covid, I’m talking about the normal day to day corruption.
To give a small example of this that just really stuck out to me this week, perhaps because I was a short term customer is the medical industry. Here, where I live, and this is the way it always used to be over America, the majority of the medical system was a bunch of doctors who got together, maybe after medical school, and set up a little practice. Hired some nurses, set up a contract with the local hospital, set up a little network of specialists etc.. You had this practice that was family medicine (GP for you Brits), this practice was cardiology, that practice was gynecology, and over there was the radiology team with all their fancy equipment. However, now all these little practices have been sucked up into one gigantic behemoth corporation that is consuming them like godzilla consumes Tokyo. Why? I asked my doctor and he explained – regulation, especially since obamacare, and medicare (who always pay six months late and always stiff the doctors on the bill, often by over 50%.)
Consequently you need a MASSIVE bureaucracy with appropriate powerful connections to actually be able to do doctoring.
So, let’s just remember, that although all those guys with begging bowls might have votes to influence the government and get their relatively minor handouts, all those massive corporations have huge power to demand money, influence, regulatory capture and protection from competition. Something that is probably on net far worse for the world that helping out a few sick people, or feeding a few hungry people.
Frasor Orr – you have a good point.
Although the Welfare States of Western Nations are certainly NOT about “helping out a few sick people” or “feeding a few hungry people” (even “Food Stamps” in the United States which was presented in 1961 as about “feeding a few hungry people” soon became a massive abuse covering millions of people) – indeed the Welfare States of most Western nations now cover most (indeed the vast majority) of government spending. In the United Kingdom that was first noticed in the 1920s (a century ago) when these domestic schemes first started to cost more than the entire armed forces, these days in all Western nations, including even the United States, health-education-and-welfare schemes dwarf (utterly dwarf) the traditional spending of government (on the armed forces and so on). Such schemes start small (the founder of them was Bismarck in Germany – but other countries, such as the United Kingdom, soon copied what Bismarck had done – and, in some ways, went further), BUT they grow like cancers – and they not only undermine economic life, they undermine SOCIETY, the basic culture of the people – destroying such things as the traditional family and voluntary associations and replacing society with a growing dependent class, an “under class”.
However, as I have already said, you have a good point – even though your implication that Welfare State spending is small (“a few sick people” “a few hungry people”) is radically mistaken – a glance at the budget of Western governments, national or local government, shows how wrong that view is – and has been for a long time now. In most Western nations the Welfare Spending dominates the budget of both national and local government – and makes up most of government spending, which is now approaching half the economy in many Western nations. “Relatively minor handouts” it is not – but (yes you are correct) it was NOT to get votes that these schemes were created in the first place (the purpose of creating them was to get people dependent on them – to undermine Civil Society) and it is not the political power of the poor (which is almost zero) that leads to these schemes being established or leads to them massively growing over time.
But the reason you have a good point – is the basic (and horrible) fact that modern Western economies, their monetary and financial order, is now based on creating “money” from NOTHING that people would choose to value (instead just bits of paper or, mostly, lights on computer screens) and dishing out this “money”, at artificially low interest rates (remember this “money” would not exist in a free market – where people got to CHOOSE what they used as money, be it gold, silver or some other commodity that was valued before-and-apart-from its use as money), to the politically connected.
To the vast corporations who you, quite rightly, point a finger at.
It is not government contracts or direct subsidies that are the real problem (although, yes, there are terrible abuses) – it is the monetary and financial order itself.
The “money” created, via the Central Banking system, and dished out.
This is known, as you may well know Sir, as the “Cantillon Effect” (named after Richard Cantillon – an Irish economist of the early 18th century who first noted it) – Credit Money having the effect of concentrating income and wealth in a few hands, helping the rich at the expense of everyone else.
However, Richard Cantillon was writing about much smaller abuses than we have today – things like the great “bubble” his ex partner John Law created due to his influence with the French government.
What we have today, and why you are right to point the finger at it, is not “abuses” – but an entire monetary and financial system that is one vast abuse, one vast Cantillon Effect, on a scale that Richard Cantillon could not have dreamed of in his worst nightmares.
Most likely this monetary and financial system (this money created from nothing and dished out to the connected) will collapse in 2025 – but the collapse will be terrible, and the international establishment elite plan to replace it with a system that will be even worse, “digital money” controlled by governments and partner corporations – such as the Credit Bubble banks and other despicable financial entities (such as Black Rock, State Street and Vanguard – which have shares in each other, so are really a “blob”, and, with other “institutions”, control most shares in the so called American “market”).
Not really Marxism – more the ideas of Henri Saint-Simon two centuries ago, brought horribly to life.
When money stops being an actual commodity, that people choose to value before-and-apart-from its use as money, and lending stops being from Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption – being replaced by Credit Expansion) real Capitalism, actual Free Enterprise, is replaced by something closer to Organised Crime – but on a truly dreadful scale, and joined at the hip with governments.
Health-education-and-welfare schemes (going back to the ideas of Frederick the Great or perhaps even Thomas Cromwell – but first really pushed by Otto Von Bismarck), the “Welfare State”, now make up the vast majority of government spending in Western countries – national and local government spending, and government spending has exploded to almost half the economy in many Western nations.
But, and this is the point that Fraser Orr rightly draws attention to, the monetary and financial system itself has become one vast abuse – creating endless money from nothing and dishing it out to the connected, and the connected are NOT the poor – the connected are vast (and normally very “Woke” – i.e. culturally destructive) Corporate entities.
Yes I saw that, and then have seen the story about how he talked with generals about a military raid on the Netherlands to seize vaccines, and just think the fact that this was discussed suggests BoJo is mental. If it wasn’t coming directly from his own memoirs I wouldn’t believe it.
I suppose copy like that will help sell memoirs and is pure tabloid slop but it makes me glad he’s out of office, even if his successors are bad.
Martin – yes the “lets attack the Netherlands” stuff was crazy, was he just making it up to sell books?
But then Mr Johnson has a habit of musing about war with various places – including countries with vast numbers of thermonuclear weapons.
Any nation allowed into NATO is covered by Article Five, this Mr Johnson knows well, so if that country is at war – then the United Kingdom, which is a member of NATO, is also at war.
Meanwhile the last coal powered British power station closes today – the British economy is not going to do well, to put the matter mildly. This is “Net Zero” (read Year Zero) agenda that Mr Johnson used to MOCK – before he became Prime Minister and started to fanatically push it.
The United Kingdom can not afford conventional war – let alone withstand thermonuclear war.
We have basically no anti missile defences, we do not have shelters for the vast majority of the population (we have nuclear shelters for less than 1% of the population – more than 99% of the population would be exposed), and Britain, especially south east England is very densely populated (unlike Russia – which has vast open spaces) all our farmland would be horribly contaminated, to a terrible level.
Thermonuclear war would destroy Britain – but Mr Johnson does not seem to grasp this fact.
Paul – he certainly could be just making it up to sell books and provide slop for the Daily Mail trough. While that would perhaps mean BoJo isn’t completely crazy, it still would reflect very badly on him (and the newspapers publicising him).
@Paul Marks
indeed the Welfare States of most Western nations now cover most (indeed the vast majority) of government spending.
I don’t think that is true here, depending on what you consider welfare. In the US medicaid and income security programs are about 16% of the federal budget. The majority of the money goes on social security and medicare which I don’t really consider welfare — they are a dreadful, mandatory retirement system that Americans are forced to pay into — so in a sense it is people getting back money from a pension plan. Not that I am in favor of this horrible plan, but it is quite categorically different that the straight up charitable payments of medicaid and SNAP.
On the other hand, in the corporate world, banks are allowed to print ten dollars for every dollar they have, corporations have “patents” giving them exclusive rights to certain products because they have armies of lawyers raining down on the patent office, others have such regulatory capture that they can’t be competed against. What does that look like? To use one example: the medical industry is replete with examples where medical products usually cost 10x what they would in a free market and often 100x. Corporations, when they get large enough to dance in Washington DC, get very fat off the many, many options they have in the massive corporate welfare behemoth. And don’t even get me started on the military industrial complex. A set of products with the dual benefits of growing the size of politicians’ penises and producing products that are designed to be destroyed and replaced.
I’m not in favor of government charity programs, certainly not the way they are constituted now, but the people who get that charity are poor people in a bad way. Government welfare is not good for the poor in the long term, but it sure does help in the short term. But it just seems to me much worse that fat billionaires are getting even fatter off corporate welfare than any attempt to alleviate real suffering no matter how hamfisted the approach or dishonest the motivation.
Frasor Orr – the Welfare States, health, education and welfare (which is what the American Federal department used to be called – before it was split up) make up by far the biggest share of the American Federal budget – even if one ignores State and local spending (which I would never do – it is all tax and spend after all). it is indeed a bit less than other Western countries – but vastly more than 16% of the Federal budget.
By the way, yes indeed Social Security is welfare – that was decided by the Supreme Court in the 1930s, otherwise the program (even by their own loose ideas) would be unconstitutional – so is Medicare. There are no “investments” – other than government IOUs (“Treasuries” are just government IOUs – just as State and local “bonds” are just State and local IOUs – there is nothing productive backing any of this).
The point of Social Security (as with government Old Age Pensions in other countries) was to undermine the family (the compact of the generations – having children and looking after them, and they, in turn, looking after their parents in old age) and to undermine private fraternal organisations (both religious and secular) – this it has done, it has achieved the objective of making the old dependent on the government.
Most Americans used to be members of fraternal orders who would stand up for their members – and engage in mutual aid. Now most Americans are atomised and vulnerable – just as the government, and the academic experts who created the programs, intended.
However, debt on the national debt is indeed an increasing share of the Federal budget.
This is also INTENTIONAL.
After all the government creates money from NOTHING (not gold, not silver – NOTHING) it could just use this money (money from nothing) to fund its spending directly – but, instead, it (via the Federal Reserve) creates the money from nothing, lends it out to banks and other such, and borrows the money back again at a higher rate of interest.
In this way there is INFLATION, the money created from nothing, and a crippling National Debt – at-the-same-time – with more and more of the budget just going on servicing this debt.
It is actually quite difficult to do all this at the same time – that is why I say it is intentional.
The powerful want inflation and a crippling national debt at-the-same-time – policy is designed to achieve this result, and the result has been achieved.
As Perry often says – “the state is not your friend”.
Indeed the state, or rather those who control international governance, is both evil and insane.
In 1935, when it began, it was part of a group of programs devoted to something called the social welfare.
But I think that calling it “welfare” per the terms in this discussion is a confabulation of two concepts.
“Welfare” has come to mean “charity” – a means-tested benefit from government coffers.
But this is a benefit that is tied directly to your years of employment while contributing a set (and significant) portion of your weekly pay into government – above and beyond income taxation.
Medicare is much the same. We paid in advance for our retirement insurance policies. Again, a contribution of a certain percentage of your pay.
Worked for twenty-three years while making $X average per year? Your SS payout after retirement is set out in the tables.
This is not what y’all seem to be calling “welfare.” It was primarily an enforced-contribution retirement pension program.
bobby b
The “Trust Fund” is a fraud – there are no productive investments in it, just government IOUs (“Treasuries”).
It is welfare – the Supreme Court ruled that long ago. So is Medicare. There is nothing productive backing any of this.
Traditional families have been undermined by government policy over many decades – the compact of the generations, parents having children and those children looking after their parents in old age, has been broken. And the fraternal associations, religious and secular, that most Americans (and most British people) used to belong to have been undermined – indeed turned into a joke “do you mean like the “Sons of the Desert” in Laurel and Hardy?” is a typical reaction from people who do not know that nearly every adult once belonged to a mutual aid body – either a church or a secular fraternity (often both).
This policy (and it has been a deliberate policy) of “atomising” people, destroying families and fraternal associations (both religious and secular) and making people totally dependent on the government, will end in disaster – terrible suffering.