Largest pink diamond found in 300 years discovered in Angola

From NY Post.com (July 27, 2022):

Miners in Angola have unearthed a rare pure pink diamond that is believed to be the largest found in 300 years, the Australian site operator announced Wednesday.

A 170-carat pink diamond – dubbed The Lulo Rose – was discovered at the Lulo mine in the country’s diamond-rich northeast and is among the largest pink diamonds ever found, the Lucapa Diamond Company said in a statement to investors.

The “historic” find of the Type IIa diamond, one of the rarest and purest forms of natural stones, was welcomed by the Angolan government, which is also a partner in the mine.

“This record and spectacular pink diamond recovered from Lulo continues to showcase Angola as an important player on the world stage,” Angola’s Mineral Resources Minister Diamantino Azevedo said.

The diamond will be sold at international tender, likely at a dazzling price. Although The Lulo Rose would have to be cut and polished to realize its true value, in a process that can see a stone lose 50 percent of its weight, similar pink diamonds have sold for record-breaking prices.

The 59.6 carat Pink Star was sold at a Hong Kong auction in 2017 for US $71.2 million (AUD $102.5 million). It remains the most expensive diamond ever sold. [source]

Is China really plotting to take over the moon?

From Washington Examiner.com (June 28, 2022):

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson recently accused China of plotting a military takeover of the moon. He noted the several successful landings the Chinese have achieved on the lunar surface. Through its English-language mouthpiece, the Global Times, the Chinese Communist Party hotly denied any such ambitions and accused the United States of “hypocrisy” and harboring imperial ambitions of its own concerning Earth’s nearest neighbor.

First, we can dispense with any protestations on behalf of the CCP of high-mindedness concerning its space program. China has been fortifying islands in the South China Sea. It is casting a covetous eye on Taiwan, the inhabitants of which consider themselves citizens of an independent country, while China regards it as a “breakaway province.” China is developing a “belt and road” system of infrastructure investments designed to bind much of the developing world to itself. China is busily stealing intellectual property all over the world. It is committing human rights atrocities that rival those of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, including the genocide of the Uyghur minority.

In short, China is the new evil empire. The ruling Chinese Communist Party has no moral impediment against seizing control of the moon if it is able to do so.

Why would China or anyone else want to control the moon? The answer: resources.

A recent article in Science Focus divides the moon’s resources into three categories: rare-earth metals, helium 3, and water.

Rare-earth metals are an increasingly important part of many high-tech products, especially those related to green energy. Unfortunately, China has the vast majority of rare earths. While the United States strives to develop domestic sources of rare-earth metals, environmental concerns are stymieing attempts to set up mining and processing facilities. Concern for the environment would be less of a problem on the moon.

Helium 3 is rare on Earth but plentiful in lunar soil, where it has been deposited over billions of years by solar wind. The isotope has long been touted as a fuel for nuclear fusion. Scientists at the Fusion Technology Institute are developing a reactor that would fuse deuterium with helium 3 to create a reaction that, unlike conventional deuterium to tritium fusion, creates little or no radioactive byproducts. The drawback of such a reactor is that it must run considerably hotter than a conventional fusion reactor.

Water is the third important lunar resource. As the late Paul Spudis, a lunar geologist and advocate of a return to the moon, noted a few months before his death, the lunar poles contain an abundance of ice water in permanently shadowed craters. Water can be used for drinking, agriculture, and sanitation by future lunar settlers. It can also be refined into rocket fuel, making the moon a way station for the rest of the solar system.

Mining lunar resources and transporting them back to Earth or to orbital factories would be a formidable task. However, companies such as SpaceX and Rocket Lab have reduced the cost of space flight. That progress should continue, especially as humans return to the moon and start prospecting for its treasures. The moon contains the key to supporting a technological civilization based on clean energy.

Contrary to the complaints the Chinese Communist Party has levied against the United States, NASA has been quite open about its desire to establish an international regime to regulate the moon and its resources, hence the Artemis Accords . American law has mandated that while no one can own lunar territory, private companies have the right to own resources that they extract.

If China is serious about eschewing sole control of the moon, perhaps it would like to sign the Artemis Accords. No other act China could undertake would better prove its assertion that it does not intend to extend the imperialist strategy it is undertaking on Earth to the heavens. Nelson should publicly invite China to do so. Its response, if it cares to give one, would be illuminating. [source]

With the Biden regime in control, I wouldn’t be surprised if China tried this.

You might be a liberal if...

From Pete McArdle on American Thinker.com (Jan. 26, 2022):

Liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder, and early treatment is essential to regaining sanity.

Always looking to be of help, I've compiled a checklist of liberal beliefs so that concerned readers may gauge whether or not they're a budding liberal in dire need of intervention.

So, without further ado, you might be a liberal if...

You think having your penis amputated and your Adam's apple shaved makes you a woman.

You think a deadly virus emanating from a city with a level-4 biohazard virology lab actually came from an animal at a food market.

You know Democrats made it super-easy to cheat in 2020 with early voting, mail-in voting, ballot-harvesting, and the eschewing of voter ID, yet you believe that no widespread cheating occurred.

You're certain that the crime wave sweeping the country has nothing to do with Democrats defunding and denigrating the police, emptying the jails, and greatly diminishing or eliminating bail.

You think Joe Biden's hair, teeth, or compassion for his fellow man is real.

You're ready to block traffic, burn buildings, loot stores, and spit on cops when annually, a handful of black men are wrongfully killed by police.  But you'd never leave the comfort of your La-Z-Boy for the handful of black men murdered in Chicago every weekend.

You fully expect lazy, fat-cat politicians driving around in large motorcades and flying private jets to tony climate conferences to save the planet.

You watch CNN's human potato, Brian Stelter, educating schoolkids on how to spot misinformation, and you don't laugh uproariously.

You think Kamala Harris is smart, charismatic, and a great communicator.  Ditto for the Hildebeest.

You're fine with vagrants masturbating, pooping, and shooting up on city sidewalks.  But you'd berate your teenager for doing those same things in your front yard.

You approve of criminals, terrorists, drug-dealers, and sex-traffickers — and some, I assume, nice people — pouring across our southern border, yet you have a nice tall fence around your home, deadbolt locks on all your doors, and a state-of-the-art alarm system.

You wore surgical masks, practiced social distancing, quarantined when indicated, and soldiered through the bad side-effects of not one, but two COVID-19 vaccinations plus a booster.  Yet you still contracted the virus and, a month later, have not fully recovered from it.  Still, you tell a pollster you "strongly approve" of the job Tony Fauci, a multi-millionaire on a civil service salary, has done fighting the pandemic.

You firmly believe that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, his guards simply fell asleep, and the jail's video cameras just happened to be inoperative at the time of Epstein's death.  And you're certain the Clintons had nothing to do with Epstein's untimely demise.

You consider today's FBI fair, trustworthy, and non-partisan.  And you find Comey, McCabe, and Strzok strangely sexy.

You think roads, trees, credit scores, punctuality, math, climate change, professionalism, and proper English grammar are irredeemably racist.

You strongly support the termination and dismemberment of unborn babies at any time in a pregnancy and for any reason.  And you're fine with abortion facilities selling fetal body parts.  But you'd never in a million years watch the actual procedure.

You think the COVID tests our federal government is promising to provide, late to the party and unreliable at best, are free.

You accept Alec Baldwin's claim that his gun went off without him pulling the trigger.  You further believe there's such a thing as an "assault rifle," and if we just closed the "gun show loophole," there'd be peace in our time.

When teachers' unions reacted to COVID-19 by essentially going on paid vacation, thereby doing lasting damage to an entire generation of children, you nodded in full agreement.  Ditto for remote learning.

You tell your friends that the roaring inflation that just happened to pop up during Joe Biden's first year in office is caused by corporate greed.  Capitalism, not wild governmental overspending, is the problem, you advise them, nodding sagely.

Although vaccinated, boosted, and fully recovered from a nasty bout with COVID, you wear two masks and a face shield while driving in your car alone.  And there's an old, faded I'M WITH HER sticker on your rear bumper.

You'd love to get rid of fossil fuels, secure in the knowledge that windmills and waterfalls will somehow make up the difference in energy supply.  Yet your pricey solar panels barely put a dent in your energy costs, and now your roof leaks every time it rains.

You're somehow able to listen to Nancy Pelosi speak without staring at the wildly arching eyebrows halfway up her forehead.

I could go on, folks, but there's just too many loony leftist beliefs to list without writing an entire novel.  Suffice it to say, if you agreed with even one of the above sentiments, you need to see a doctor, toute suite!

Maybe Dr. Jill Biden?  Whoopi Goldberg says she's a helluva doctor. [source]

Zero-Click’ Hacks Are Growing in Popularity. There’s Practically No Way to Stop Them

From MSN.com (Feb. 17, 2022):

(Bloomberg) -- As a journalist working for the Arab news network Alaraby, Rania Dridi said she’s taken precautions to avoid being targeted by hackers, keeping an eye out for suspicious messages and avoiding clicking on links or opening attachments from people she doesn’t know.

Dridi’s phone got compromised anyway with what’s called a “zero-click” attack, which allows a hacker to break into a phone or computer even if its user doesn’t open a malicious link or attachment.  Hackers instead exploit a series of security flaws in operating systems — such as Apple Inc.’s iOS or Google’s Android — to breach a device without having to dupe their victim into taking any action. Once inside, they can install spyware capable of stealing data, listening in on calls and tracking the user’s location.

With people more wary than ever about clicking on suspicious links in emails and text messages, zero-click hacks are being used more frequently by government agencies to spy on activists, journalists and others, according to more than a dozen surveillance company employees, security researchers and hackers interviewed by Bloomberg News. 

Once the preserve of a few intelligence agencies, the technology needed for zero-click hacks is now being sold to governments by a small number of companies, the most prominent of which is Israel’s NSO Group. Bloomberg News has learned that at least three other Israeli companies — Paragon, Candiru and Cognyte Software Ltd. — have developed zero-click hacking tools or offered them to clients, according to former employees and partners of those companies, demonstrating that the technology is becoming more widespread in the surveillance industry.

There are certain steps that a potential victim can take that might reduce the chances of a successful zero-click attack, including keeping a device updated. But some of the more effective methods — including uninstalling certain messaging apps that hackers can use as gateways to breach a device — aren’t practical because people rely on them for communication, said Bill Marczak, a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab, a research group at the University of Toronto that focuses on abuses of surveillance technology. [source]

Pentagon audit says dozens of potentially dangerous Afghans let loose in U.S.

From Washington Times.com (Feb. 18, 2022):

Afghan evacuees made it to U.S. soil without being checked through all the government’s security databases, an inspector general reported Thursday in a devastating investigation that confirms critics’ worst fears about the program.

After rerunning some of the names, officials spotted at least 50 Afghans with “potentially significant security concerns” who made it to the U.S. despite the Biden administration’s assurances to the contrary.

Making matters worse, the government appears to have lost track of most of them, the Defense Department’s inspector general said. It looked at a sampling of 31 security risk evacuees identified as of Sept. 17 and found that only three could be located.

Tens of thousands more names remain to be checked, the inspector general said.

“Not being able to locate Afghan evacuees with derogatory information quickly and accurately could pose a security risk to the United States,” the audit concluded.

Investigators said a key set of Defense Department databases was off-limits to the vetting team in the early months of the evacuation program because of Pentagon agreements with other countries.

Officials eventually developed a workaround, but the lapse confirmed what critics had warned.

“I expressed concern about the administration’s lackluster efforts to screen evacuees flooding from the terrorist safe haven. According to a new report by the Pentagon watchdog, the situation is far worse than we thought,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He said the report should put a halt to talk of speeding up citizenship or other permanent legal opportunities for the evacuees.

What lurks among the 76,000 evacuees in the U.S. has raised concern since the chaotic airlift in August.

The airlift was billed as a chance to save people who worked with the U.S. military, but the majority of evacuees lacked those ties. Some assisted other U.S. agencies or American media organizations, but others were, according to one evacuation advocacy group, shopkeepers and businesspeople from Kabul who were lucky enough to make it to the airport on time.

Thousands of U.S. military allies were stranded.

Most of the evacuees brought to the U.S. did not have the in-person interviews required for refugees and allies under the Special Immigrant Visa program. Experts say the interview process is critical to weed out bad actors.

Instead, the evacuees were brought to third countries and subjected to database checks based on fingerprints and other biographic information they chose to share.

“We screen and vet individuals before they board planes to travel to the United States, and that screening and vetting process is an ongoing one and multilayered,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in September in defense of the process.

The inspector general’s report punctures those claims. Although the Homeland Security Department checked its own databases, it didn’t initially have access to the Defense Department’s Automated Biometric Identification System or some intelligence databases on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network.

The Defense Department played a supporting role to Homeland Security in vetting, but it led the process of housing evacuees by stuffing them into camps at eight military bases across the country.

The inspector general confirmed reporting by The Washington Times and others that Afghans were free to leave. A month after the airlift ended, more than 1,200 had disappeared into the U.S. without completing full Homeland Security processing.

The audit suggested two changes.

First, it urged that the workaround to allow access to secret Defense Department files be extended until all vetting is complete. The Pentagon agreed with that recommendation.

Second, the inspector general said the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security should come up with firm procedures for sharing “derogatory information” on Afghan evacuees with the rest of the Defense Department and other federal agencies. The undersecretary’s office agreed with that proposal. [source]

Another article about Afghanistan:

“No Man Left Behind” – US Team of Veterans Rescued 17,000 US Legal Permanent US Residents in Afghanistan After Joe Biden Abandoned Them Following Surrender to Taliban

More Than 50 House Republicans Now Calling For Biden To Take A Cognitive Test

From The Gateway Pundit.com (July 28, 2022):

Over fifty House Republicans are now calling on Biden to take a cognitive test and it’s easy to understand why.

Democrats called on Trump to take one and not only did he do it, he aced it. Why can’t Biden do the same?

Could it be that the Biden White House doesn’t want him to take such a test because it would confirm everyone’s worst fears about him?

FOX News reports:

More than 50 Republicans call for Biden to take cognitive test, amid Dem concerns about president’s age

More than 50 House Republicans on Wednesday are calling for President Biden to take a cognitive test, as the president’s opponents, and even some allies, question his fitness for the job at age 79.

Fifty-four Republicans signed the letter, addressed to President Biden, which was led by Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas. That’s up from 13 co-signers on a similar letter Jackson led in June 2021, and 37 co-signers on a letter in February.

The latest letter also includes key members of House Republican leadership, including Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Conference Vice Chair Mike Johnson, R-La.

“We again write to you to express concern with your current cognitive state and to urge you to submit to a cognitive test immediately. We believe that, regardless of gender, age, or political party, all Presidents should follow the example set by former President Trump to document and demonstrate sound mental abilities,” the letter says.

“While you have largely brushed aside these assertions as partisan political attacks, the left-leaning New York Times recently published an article outlining all of this in great detail,” the letter continues. “According to The New York Times, the increased scrutiny surrounding your cognitive state has been fueled by your recent public appearances.” [read more]

Probably a good idea. Trump took the test and passed with flying colors.

Schumer Strips Anti-China Security Provision From Major Semiconductor Bill

From Free Beacon.com (July 26, 2022):

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) removed an anti-China security measure from a bill that invests billions of dollars in the U.S. technology sector, a move Republicans say would allow China to benefit from the spending bill and could kneecap the legislation.

At issue are provisions written by Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) that bar U.S. companies from manufacturing products in China, such as semiconductors, that were developed using federally funded research. Myriad government and private investigations conclude that the Chinese government routinely steals trade secrets from U.S. companies, government agencies, and universities.

Schumer earlier this month removed Portman"s provisions from the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Act, throwing a wrench into the vote for Republicans who were under the impression it would be included and planned to vote for the bill, according to multiple interviews and internal documents viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

The reason Schumer removed Portman"s anti-China provision is unclear. Some say he caved to lobbying efforts from various interest groups and the White House. The Senate last year passed a version of Portman"s measure with bipartisan support, but the House never put it up for a vote.

The removal puts a bipartisan bill that appeared to be headed toward approval in jeopardy. Opponents of the CHIPS Act now include several Republican senators who initially supported the funding for the domestic production of semiconductors. Even if it passes, the lack of meaningful guardrails against the Chinese raise grave questions about whether a bill initially meant to counter China may backfire.

Schumer did not respond to a request for comment.

The CHIPS Act puts a staggering $250 billion for domestic science investment and education, making it the largest domestic industrial investment scheme in U.S. history. But Republicans say the act, prompted by concerns that the United States is losing its technological edge to China on such critical goods as semiconductors, could end up benefiting adversaries.

Senior staffers from six Republican offices in the Senate and House spoke to the Free Beacon on the condition of anonymity to criticize Schumer"s decision. In interviews, several expressed bewilderment at the modification while others said they were misled by Senate leadership.

"Legislators are talking about pouring hundreds of billions into industry subsidies and federal R&D, ostensibly to strengthen American competitiveness and to compete with China," one Senate staffer told the Free Beacon. "Spending that level of taxpayer dollars without meaningful safeguards to ensure they don’t end up in Beijing’s hands—either through Chinese Communist Party espionage, corporate malfeasance, or inept bureaucrats—would be a colossal mistake."

Exactly why Portman"s measure was removed is a matter of ongoing debate on Capitol Hill. One office blamed Rep. Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), the ranking member on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Two Republican offices pointed the finger at Senate Republican staff tasked with whipping support for the CHIPS Act for failing to communicate that the provision was removed ahead of a procedural vote earlier this month. Another office said the decision to remove the guardrail provision was entirely Schumer"s and couldn"t be stopped by Republicans.

Guardrail provisions such as the ones in Portman"s bill are unpopular with universities with large research departments, as well as some corporations. Universities object for ideological reasons, namely the belief that their research should be enjoyed by everyone around the world. Universities in the last several weeks have been lobbying Republican members including Lucas particularly hard, Republican sources told the Free Beacon.

"Lucas has been turned by the lefty universities," the individual said. "Disappointing that he"s going soft on China for them."

One House Republican source called the idea that a single member in the minority party could tank the provision preposterous, and that the negotiations took place entirely in the Senate. A staffer for Lucas on the House Committee on Science and Technology concurred with that characterization.

"The House was shut out of any negotiations after the Senate ended four-corner discussions and then picked up this legislation on their own," said Heather Vaughan, communications director for the House Committee on Science and Technology. "If the Senate can"t read their own legislative language ahead of a vote or negotiate effectively with each other, that"s simply not within our control."

No matter the explanation, the lack of guardrails means several Senate offices that were potential "Yes" votes on the CHIPS Act are working behind the scenes to tank it. Other senators, such as Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), are pushing for new guardrail provisions.

Rubio on July 22 filed legislation that would, among other things, establish a counterintelligence screening process to "certify that anyone receiving funds under the bill has sufficient protections against government threats." Such guardrails are missing from the CHIPS Act, he said.

"America needs to make things again, especially critical chips and other tech, but we need to do it in a way that benefits our country and our workers," Rubio said. "Unless we add meaningful safeguards in this package, we should call this for what it is: the China Investment Bill."

The Senate is expected to hold a final vote this week on the CHIPS Act. Original supporters of domestic semiconductor funding, including Rubio, are expected to vote against it. [source]

Jackass! Either Schumer is getting kick backs from China or he is just anti-American. Or both. Too bad he can’t be kicked out of the senate or lose leadership.

They've Dragged Us into Their Matrix

From American Thinker.com (Jan. 24, 2022):

Why does reality seem unreal these days?  The short answer is this: we are all being dragged into a government-controlled matrix.  In the blockbuster movie that popularized that concept twenty years ago, Keanu Reeves's character discovers that his mind is "living" in a virtual reality neural network while machine overlords keep his physical body comatose and imprisoned in a pod.  A lot of powerful people apparently watched that story and decided that the machines were actually on "the right side of history."

Whereas the film championed the ideas of liberation and free will over submission and control, in the real world today, it is subjugation and authority that are championed over freedom and individual rights.  Governments, corporations, and a small global oligarchy are working diligently to put us into our pods, shut us away from reality, and hook us directly into the matrix they've created to keep us under their total control.

Depending on your age, life experience, and level of cynicism, this truth is either obvious or preposterous.  When you accept it as fact, however, then the world doesn't look chaotic at all.  It looks exactly as one would expect if the machines had just begun rounding up humans for their forced hibernation. 

The goals of our overlords are indistinguishable from those of the machines they emulate: (1) eliminate personal sovereignty, (2) elevate absolute government control, and (3) track all human activity.  How are such goals accomplished?  By teaching humans that individualism is bad, that government coercion in the name of the "common good" is ideal, and that privacy hinders "progress."  How do you teach these lessons?  Through indoctrination and behavioral modification. 

Consider the most important doctrinal issue for Big Government over the last half-century: planetary extinction from the use of hydrocarbon energy.  These energies are responsible for saving more people from poverty than any other resource in human history, but they also led to a natural population explosion that frightened the traditionally powerful.  More people with more wealth mean more freedom and less centralized, authoritarian control.  So how have our machines responded?  By calling for the strict regulation of all energies.  And how is regulation accomplished?  By creating a religious fanaticism predicated on the worship of "green" idols, the demonization of hydrocarbon energy, and the revelation of apocalyptic visions prophesying the end of the world.  For people who have been proselytized, all human activity must be regulated because all human activity involves the use of hydrocarbon energy.  Freedom is eliminated by the "need" for governments to monitor everything.

Of course, promises of planetary doom depend upon dates for a coming apocalypse that are sufficiently distant that they don't come and pass as unceremoniously as Y2K.  There's the rub for our machines.  A date too soon, and the con is exposed.  A date too far off, and it becomes more difficult to convince the rabble to voluntarily return to life as it existed during the Bronze Age, just so the descendants of some "woke," genderless Gaia-worshiper can enjoy further Bronze Ages two centuries from now.  For all the global hysteria directed toward brainwashing the masses with visions of a dying planet, too many people simply refused to get into their pods.  This has made our machines mad.

So what to do?  Aha!  You move the date of the apocalypse up to the present by scaring the bejesus out of the world with a mysterious pandemic caused by a threat unseen.  Unlike with tales of planetary destruction, the more invisible the enemy, the more intimidating it becomes.  It could be anywhere!  On that grocery shelf, on your office stapler, on the familiar face you always kiss — look out!  What a winning formula: fear of death + fear of the unknown = a population screaming at the government machines to tuck them safely away into their pods with dreams of a better world before the viral nightmares attack.  And our machines have giddily obliged: "Step right in here, we'll keep you safe, don't worry about a thing." 

Abracadabra, welcome to their matrix. 

Of course we'll wear three masks, kind machines.  Of course we'll dutifully watch our loved ones die from a distance through many walls of glass.  Of course we'll stay locked inside, spend all our savings, isolate from friends, and destroy our futures.  Of course we'll embrace censorship, mandates, and coercion.  Of course we'll allow you to digitally track us for the rest of our lives.  It's for the "common good," right, machines?  Anyone who protests is a selfish individual!  There can be no personal freedom when lives are at stake!  Follow the Science!  Science is good, it's settled, and it's absolutely worth obeying! 

"My goodness," says one machine to another.  "We were right all along.  Fear of death does cause humans to welcome their own enslavement.  We just had to find the right monster."

Is it any surprise that, except for President Trump, no world leader ever called for steady calm or rallied people to face the China Virus with bravery and fortitude?  Instead, the order of the day has been, "Panic!"  Can you imagine trying to survive the great plagues and wars of the past if leaders everywhere were demanding that people be afraid?  I don't know if I'd go over that hill, if I were you; if all the barbed wire doesn't get you, the machine gun nests certainly will.  Yet here we are fighting a disease that would have gone relatively unnoticed by previous generations, and leaders all across the West can only exclaim, "We're all gonna die!" 

When "fear" is being sold by the same governments that in the past would have encouraged "bravery" during much darker times, is it not time to take a step back and ask what's really going on?  Does it not then become clear that we're not fighting a virus at all, but rather fighting a complete takeover by government of the personal sphere?  And if that thought awakens one to the possibility that government leaders are currently in the business of not protecting, but subjugating their populations, then doesn't it become obvious that the last two years have had nothing to do with public health and everything to do with public control?  If so, then you might be willing to accept that you're living in the government's artificial matrix. 

The oligarchs might call it the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" or the "Great Reset," but when you're the one being imprisoned in a pod under the machines' supervision and direction, it is their free will, not your free will, that is flourishing.  Next up comes a techno-religious opiate for the obedient — the introduction of mass virtual reality, so that those under real and total control can experience fake and illusory freedom.  If television and phone screens made vegetables of some, widespread virtual reality will surely strain them into vegetable puree.  And ironically, even in the artificial worlds being constructed for our amusement, freedom must remain regulated enough that the slaves never learn to rise against their real-life masters.

The good news is this: no authoritarian has ever succeeded in completely extinguishing the human desire to be free.  That indomitable spirit does not reside in a few distinct bloodlines but appears in unexpected places from one generation to the next.  Like a game of whack-a-mole, every time governments believe they have succeeded in snuffing liberty out, new voices grow louder and multiply once again.  That's why our overlords and their matrix are doomed to fail.

Rome fell when enough Goths, Vandals, and Huns decided to make their own world.  Something similar happens when we break free from our suffocating pods and recognize the government's matrix as the mental prison it really is. [source]

Could Mark Cuban’s Plan to Disrupt Big Pharma Actually Work?

From FEE.org (Feb. 9, 2022):

Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban recently announced his latest, ground-breaking innovation, and it’s one that should catch the attention of Americans. The venture is an online pharmacy for generic medications that cuts out the middlemen (insurance companies, PBMs, etc), and offers price transparency for consumers.

By doing this, Cuban stands to substantially lower the prices of these drugs for patients and make money in the process.

“Not everyone sets the goal of being the lowest cost producer and provider,” Cuban told Axios. “My goal is to make a profit while maximizing impact.”

According to Cuban and the company’s website, all drugs will be priced at cost plus a 15 percent mark-up.

How It Will Work

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company is set-up to eliminate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which pharmacists have been warning Americans about for some time.

These entities manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of large employers and health insurance companies, and while they’re a lesser-known player in the pharmaceuticals industry, they’re an expensive one.

In short, these middlemen negotiate with drug manufacturers and pharmacies to control drug spending. They choose what drugs are covered by insurance, determine co-pays, decide which pharmacies fall under what plans, and decide how much pharmacies will be reimbursed for certain drugs. As a whole, they drive up the price of drugs through things like price spreading, where they charge the plan sponsor above the cost of the drug and keep the spread as profit.

Crony insurance companies, which are backed by both state and federal regulations, force pharmacists to work with these middlemen (by refusing to cover prescriptions otherwise) who block information about the true price of drugs and the rebates they receive in the negotiations. They also obfuscate cost-saving information about drugs (say, should the patient be able to pay cash and actually get a cheaper price vs. going through insurance).

“Would you trust your doctor to make the decision about your chemotherapy, or a corporation?” Ted Okon, the executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, a group of community-based cancer doctors, said. “It’s just not acceptable when a cancer patient, especially someone who is in dire need of treatment, doesn’t understand why they can’t get the drug.”

Since insurance companies refuse to work with pharmacies that go around PBMs, Cuban is cutting PBMs out of the picture altogether—offering a cash-based alternative that sells drugs directly to the consumer.

Out the gate, consumers will have access to 100 generic medicines at a price that will still be less than what customers would pay through their insurance or co-pays (yes, that’s how much PBMs jack the price of medicines up). The company will buy directly from third-party suppliers and, soon, manufacture its own products.

How much savings are we talking? NPR offered a glimpse of the potential.

“A 30-count of imatinib, which is used to treat leukemia and other cancers, goes for as low as $17.10 at Cuban's pharmacy compared with $2,502.60 at other pharmacies,” reported NPR’s Joe Hernandez.

Better Than Government

This is thrilling news. Few Americans understand how substantial of a role insurance companies and their middlemen play in messing up our healthcare market and driving up the costs of basic products and services. Bureaucrats, politicians, insurance companies, and healthcare lobbyists have created such an over-regulated, crony market that the only way to stop the red tape from strangling consumers is to cut them out of the equation altogether.

Cuban, a brilliant and shrewd businessman, clearly saw the root of the problem when it comes to drug prices and is doing something to cut out the rot.

“Transparency is the buzzword in healthcare. It’s easy to understand why. US healthcare markets generally lack transparency. And, without it, the market cannot operate optimally,” wrote Forbes’ Joshua Cohen. “Mark Cuban is to be commended for tackling the lack of transparency.”

Cuban’s insight stands in stark contrast to many lawmakers who continue to miss the point, working to enact drug price caps that would create shortages rather than address the real underlying problems making prescriptions expensive in the first place.

Price transparency allows consumers to shop around, effectively forcing companies to have better products and lower prices. So competition and consumer choice are the key to making medication affordable.

Price is really just a signal that conveys scarcity. But in the US, the regulatory scheme between the government and the insurance companies prevents consumers from knowing this important signal. That means they’re lacking information that could help them drive the price of products down in healthcare. As economist Thomas Sowell said, “Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated.”

If consumers knew they had cheaper options for prescriptions they would choose them. If the drug manufacturers were able to directly communicate their costs to consumers, they might bring them down to meet demand and sell more of their product. Cuban’s new business cuts out all the middlemen and allows these kinds of negotiations to take place. It’s free market brilliance.

It’s time to build models that go around the insurance companies and politicians. We must eradicate their hold on the market.

The vast majority of those in government are missing the mark when it comes to drug prices. Cuban is pioneering the actual pathway that will produce the results Americans desperately need. [source]

NEW: CIA Secretly Operated 'Bulk' Data Collection Program on American Citizens

Commentary From Jerry Wilson on Red State.com (Feb. 10, 2022):

In news that isn’t news to those in the know, a newly-declassified letter from two Democrat senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee revealed that the CIA maintains a hitherto undisclosed repository of data on American citizens. The Washington Post reports:

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico sent a letter to top intelligence officials calling for more details about the program to be declassified. Large parts of the letter, which was sent in April 2021 and declassified Thursday, and documents released by the CIA were blacked out. Wyden and Heinrich said the program operated “outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection.”

The belief that the CIA has long held information deemed outside its prerogative as a collector of data on foreign countries to protect American interests at home and abroad is nothing new. While the greatest amount of attention in this area has been paid to the NSA due in no small part to Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations, as the Post article details, ofttimes information on American citizens becomes part of the data mining, but:

Intelligence agencies are required to take steps to protect U.S. information, including redacting the names of any Americans from reports unless they are deemed relevant to an investigation. The process of removing redactions is known as “unmasking.”

In the letter, Wyden and Heinrich reiterate Congress’s intent to limit/prohibit “the warrantless collection of Americans’ records, as well as the public’s intense interest in and support for these legislative efforts.” Knowing that, the CIA “secretly conducted its own bulk program [redacted]” and “has done so entirely outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection” and without oversight.

<redacted>This history demonstrates Congress's clear intent, expressed over many years and through multiple pieces of legislation, to limit and, in some cases, prohibit the warrantless collection of Americans' records, as well as the public's intense interest in and support for these legislative efforts. And yet, throughout this period, the CIA has secretly conducted its own bulk program <redacted> It has done so entirely outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection, and without any of the judicial, congressional or even executive branch oversight that comes with FISA collection. This basic fact has been kept from the public and from Congress. Until the PCLOB report was delivered last month, the nature and full extent of the CIA's collection was withheld even from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

And, Wyden and Heinrich are demanding declassification and transparency.

<redacted>Among the many details the public deserves to know are the nature of the CIA's relationship with its sources and the legal framework for the collection; the kind of records collected <redacted> the amount of Americans' records maintained; and the rules governing the use, storage, dissemination and queries (including U.S. person queries) of the records. Each of these matters has been the subject of extensive declassifications with regard to NSA's and FBI's FISA collection; there is no reason why CIA's activities cannot be equally transparent.

CIA Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer Kristi Scott said in a statement:

“CIA recognizes and takes very seriously our obligation to respect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons in the conduct of our vital national security mission. CIA is committed to transparency consistent with our obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods.”

A side note to the above is drawn from family history. My late father had interactions during his military and civilian careers with various US intelligence agencies and would occasionally tell me bits of information about how they operated without ever detailing any operations. One fact he stressed to me is that while on the surface different agencies, such as the CIA and NSA, play up their differences much like the Army and Navy, where it counts the two are very much one in sharing data – though according to insiders and reports from our own Jennifer Van Laar some of that has changed over the years. Also, he said agencies are far more adept at their jobs than they sometimes lead the public to perceive.

Senators Wyden and Heinrich may well be sincere in their desire for more transparency, but if they have a clue they are also more than willing to play the public outrage game as a diversion from the CIA and NSA’s actual data accumulation (i.e., there’s a reason this report ran in the Washington Post). This is not Alex Jones tinfoil fodder, but rather the way it has been since the Cold War. [source]

More articles on the CIA’s data collection program:

• Senators raise alarm about secret CIA data-collection program
• 6 Things We Know about the CIA’s Secret Mass Surveillance Program

Senate investigation reveals China’s effort to infiltrate Federal Reserve

From Washington Times.com (July 26, 2022):

China is trying to recruit U.S.-based economists to feed information back to Chinese officials and has even managed to place cooperating sources inside the Federal Reserve banking system, according to a Senate report released Tuesday.

One employee provided information on the Fed’s economic modeling to a Chinese university. Another, who had connections with China’s international recruitment network, tried to send large sets of data from the Fed to an external site, according to the report by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Yet another employee kept tabs on arrests of accused Chinese collaborators and used “xijinping” — the name of China’s president — as a website password.

Investigators said the Fed identified 13 people of “potential concern” in eight of the reserve’s 12 banks.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, the top Republican on the committee, said the report follows an investigation that exposed China’s efforts to burrow operatives in the heart of America’s science and technology communities.

His investigators turned up one incident in which a Federal Reserve employee traveling to China was detained by Chinese officials on four occasions. The person’s family was threatened if the employee didn’t start leaking economic information.

“I am concerned by the threat to the Fed and hope our investigation, which is based on the Fed’s own documents and corresponds with assessments and recommendations made by the FBI, wakes the Fed up to the broad threat from China to our monetary policy,” the Ohio Republican said in announcing the report.

He said the Fed lacked the wherewithal to track and respond to China’s attempts.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell vehemently disputed the findings. He said the system has “robust” safeguards to protect its information and that employees are required to affirm they are following the rules.

“I assure you that everything we do at the Federal Reserve is in service to our public mission to American households, businesses and communities,” Mr. Powell wrote in a letter Monday to Mr. Portman.

He said the Fed shares modeling information and works with experts around the world. Still, he said, technology guards against unauthorized data releases.

Mr. Portman released the report amid rising tensions between the U.S. and China.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, is planning a visit to Taiwan, although the Biden administration says China is threatening retaliation if she makes the trip. U.S. officials believe China is building its military capability for an attempt to capture Taiwan.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said this month that the communist country will take “resolute and strong measures” if Mrs. Pelosi visits the island.

Meanwhile, Mr. Portman and other U.S. officials are shining a spotlight on Chinese efforts to tunnel into America’s research industry.

The focus has chiefly been on China’s Confucius Institutes and its Thousand Talents Plan. The institutes were cultural education centers that American officials saw as propaganda machines. The talent program recruited American researchers to siphon information and technology to China, according to a 2019 investigation led by Mr. Portman and Sen. Thomas R. Carper, Delaware Democrat.

In the Senate report, Mr. Portman’s investigators say China’s interests run deep into America’s economy, too.

Most pointed was the attempt to pressure a senior bank official who was part of China’s Thousand Talents Plan. In 2019, the man was detained while traveling in China, where interrogators demanded he share secret Fed data.

The man told investigators that his handlers tried to get him drunk to pry more information from him.

Yet another Fed employee provided economic modeling code to Peking University.

The Federal Reserve flagged the employees’ behavior but concluded that it didn’t break policy.

A 2020 attempt by the FBI to suggest better practices for weeding out foreign influence fell on deaf ears, investigators said. [source]

Video: Russian chess robot breaks 7-year-old boy's finger during tournament

From The Blaze.com (July 24, 2022):

There has been no shortage of science fiction that has warned humans that robots would eventually launch a rebellion against us. However, how many of us speculated that the robot uprising may have started with a chess tournament involving a 7-year-old boy in Russia?

On July 19, a 7-year-old boy was taking on a Russian chess robot during the Moscow Open tournament. The boy only identified as "Christopher" is one of the 30 best "under 9 years old" chess players in Moscow. The boy – a competitor in the Moscow Chess Federation's youth league – had a piece taken by the robot. The child rushed to make his next move.

Video shows the large mechanical arm playing three simultaneous matches against three different opponents.

The chess-playing robot arm appears to grab the boy's finger. Several adults attempt to free the boy from the clutches of the robot, but it was too late – the robot broke the kid's finger.

"The robot broke the child's finger," Moscow Chess Federation President Sergey Lazarev told Russian news outlets. "This is, of course, bad."

"The robot was rented by us, it has been exhibited in many places, for a long time, with specialists," Lazarev added. "Apparently, the operators overlooked it. The child made a move, and after that we need to give time for the robot to answer, but the boy hurried, the robot grabbed him. We have nothing to do with the robot."

The robot crushed the boy's finger – which caused a fracture.

The boy was rushed away from the tournament for medical treatment. The 7-year-old returned to the tournament, but had to play with his broken finger in a cast.

"The child played the very next day, finished the tournament in a cast, and the volunteers helped to record the moves," Lazarev noted.

The boy's parents are reportedly considering options of pressing charges against the chess-playing, finger-snapping robot and its handlers.

Sergey Smagin – Vice President of the Russian Chess Federation – blamed the victim, "There are certain safety rules and the child, apparently, violated them. When he made his move, he did not realize he first had to wait. This is an extremely rare case, the first I can recall."

"The child played the very next day, finished the tournament in a cast, and the volunteers helped to record the moves," said Lazarev.

Lazarev added, "The robot operators, apparently, will have to think about strengthening protection so that this situation does not happen again." [source]

What is Heroic Virtue?

From American Thinker.com (Jan. 22, 2022):

“Our culture has a very confused sense of heroism, often applauding the biggest, strongest, loudest, or wealthiest,” writes Catholic commentator Bear Woznick in his new book, Deep Adventure: The Way of Heroic Virtue (Sophia Institute Press). In response to this distortion, he has drawn upon his own daring life of surfing Hawaii’s waves, skydiving, and running with the bulls in Pamplona, Spain, to examine insightfully the seven cardinal virtues.

Woznick counters the modern exaltation of braggadocio with courage’s mundane basis. Thus “true heroism -- the kind that saves lives, preserves dignity, and protects the most vulnerable -- is a determined, steadfast power, under control and directed toward the good with the clarity of purpose that comes with humility.” “Heroism is developed over time, one decision after another, moment by moment, formed by a deliberate, chosen, and habitual response to life,” he adds.

“Heroes are not made by a spider’s bite or on an alien planet,” Woznick clarifies. “A hero is just a common person, like you and me, choosing to do an uncommon thing.” Virtue forms such a hero, as Woznick notes its root in the Latin word “vir,” which “means ‘manly.’ True manliness is the pursuit of virtue.”

Justice stands at the beginning of Woznick’s analysis of the virtues:

The virtue of justice in its classic sense has two focuses: justice toward God and justice toward others. Think of the vertical beam of the cross as being justice toward God and the horizontal beam as justice toward others. Where the beams intersect is where we are called to live.

Prudence, meanwhile, vitally concerns the surfer Woznick. “Many people think big wave riders have a death wish, but the opposite is true. Their go-for-it attitude is really a life wish. They want to live to the fullest,” he notes. “Without prudence, we cannot fully experience God’s plan for us. Without prudence, we are lost beneath the crushing waves or, worse, left sunning ourselves on the shores of mediocrity,” Woznick analyzes. “Abandoning yourself to God’s will requires a prudent boldness… If you are going to stay inside your comfort zone, you don’t need prudence at all -- you just need a footrest.”

Woznick wisely distinguishes between earthly and heavenly desires in his discussion of temperance. “The virtue of temperance is the self-mastery to enjoy pleasure without craving it. It is moderating our appetites so that we control them instead of them controlling us,” he observes. By contrast, the “only thing we can infinitely desire is an infinite being,” namely God; “If we desire God first and foremost, we will never fall into the trap of wanting more.”

“Fortitude is the determined pursuit of the good,” Woznick writes as he reaches the last of the natural virtues, and “is the courage to do violence to our own weak will and say no to the easy way that leads to defeat.” Faith in God creates fortitude’s foundation, for “can there be any fear when we are with God? God is love, and perfect love casts out fear,” Woznick observes. “I know that whether I live or die or push forward in prolonged suffering, God is with me.”

From fortitude, Woznick transitions to the supernatural or theological virtues, beginning with faith. “Faith is dynamic, like a pent-up energy wanting to explode. Faith without action is dead,” he intriguingly states, for “God is calling you to continually move out in faith. He is calling you to do the impossible, every day.” “Every time I jump out of a plane, I feel the same rush that I feel when I take a leap of faith in response to God. Jesus challenged Peter to exercise his faith and to step out of the boat.”

True faith banishes worry and demands a confident sabbath rest amidst God’s security, Woznick explains. “When we worry, we are actually trying to exert our will over His. Making anything other than God and His will our goal is ultimately idolatry,” Woznick observes. “Trust. Rest. And try easy,” is his motto. 

Hope arises out of the deep desire for God. “The yearning to connect with beauty, to intimately share our lives with someone, and to seek perfection comes from the very core of our being because it is actually the deep longing for intimacy with our Creator,” Woznick notes. Accordingly, “[t]o pursue that longing -- to seek the knowledge of God -- is to have the virtue of hope.”

Hope entails giving control to God. “Once we’ve turned our back on the land and abandoned our will to God’s, we’ve given up all control,” Woznick writes. “Even so, we wait in hope and in prayer for the presence of the Lord.”

Woznick concludes with a similarly energetic understanding of love. “Love isn’t about feelings. Who has warm and fuzzy feelings for an enemy? No, love is about action. It’s the committed desire for the good of another and enacting it,” he writes. “Jesus commands us to make the choice of love, even for those who don’t deserve it in our opinions.”

As with Woznick’s pious mother in her long deathbed struggles, love often involves suffering. He points to God’s wrestling with Jacob in the Old Testament as an example. “If we desire true intimacy with God, we can expect that there will be times when God will drive us into the dark night and will wrestle with us as we try to cling to the world, the flesh, and the devil,” Woznick notes.  

The ocean blue provides the perfect setting for Woznick’s journey “ever deeper into the wild and untamable adventure of God’s love.” Woznick’s penetrating study of the seven cardinal virtues shows that they are not the stuff of mere academic discussions, but principles for a life both well-examined and well-lived. Woznick will not leave readers in their armchairs the same. [source]

Woke Capitalism Is a Monopoly Game

From Mises.org (Feb. 10, 2022):

In 2018, Ross Douthat of the New York Times introduced the phrase “woke capital.” Essentially, Douthat suggested that woke capitalism works by substitut­ing symbolic value for economic value. Under woke capitalism, corporations offer workers rhetorical pla­cebos in lieu of costlier economic concessions, such as higher wages and better benefits. The same gestures of woke­ness also appease the liberal political elite, promoting their agendas of identity politics, gender pluralism, transgender rights, lax immigration standards, climate change mitigation, and so on. In re­turn, woke corporations hope to be spared higher taxes, in­creased regulations, and antitrust legislation aimed at monop­olies. Although woke capitalism alienates cultural conservatives, the Republican Party remains procorporate, making woke capitalism a win-win strategy for corporations.

Business Insider columnist Josh Barro suggested that woke capitalism provides a form of parapolitical representation for workers and corporate consumers. Given their perceived political dis­enfranchisement, woke capitalism offers them representation in the public sphere, as they see their values reflected in corporate pronouncements.

Others have suggested that corporations have gone woke only to be spared cancellation by Twitter mobs and other activists, that wokeness is a good “branding tool,” or that progressive shareholders also demand corporate activism.

But woke capitalism cannot be sufficiently explained in terms of placating coastal leftists, ingratiating left-liberal legislators, or avoiding the wrath of activists. Rather, as wokeness has escalated and taken hold of corporations and states, it has become a demarcation device, a shibboleth for cartel members to identify and distinguish themselves from their nonwoke competitors, who are to be starved of capital investments. Woke capitalism has become a monopoly game.

Just as nonwoke individuals are cancelled from civic life, so too are nonwoke companies cancelled from the economy, leaving the spoils to the woke. Corporate cancellations are not merely the result of political fallout. They are being institutionalized and carried out through the stock market. The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Index is a Chinese-style social credit score for rating corporations. Woke planners wield the ESG Index to reward the in-group and to squeeze nonwoke players out of the market. Woke investment drives ownership and control of production away from the noncompliant. The ESG Index serves as an admission ticket for entry into the woke cartels.

Research suggests that ESG investing favors large over small companies. Woke capitalism vests as much control over production and distribution in these large, favored corporations as possible while eliminating industries and producers deemed either unnecessary or inimical.

The investment approach of BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager; Vanguard, the second largest; and others lends credence to this interpretation. BlackRock and Vanguard are solidly behind stakeholder capitalism—the corporate ethos of benefiting “stakeholders” in addition to or in lieu of shareholders.

In his “2021 Letter to CEOs,” BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, made his position on investment decisions clear, declaring that “climate risk is investment risk” and “the creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.” Fink promised a “tectonic shift” in investment behavior, an increasing acceleration of investments going to “sustainability-focused” companies. Fink warned CEOs: “And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock.” In thus throwing down the stakeholder gauntlet, Fink echoed the menacing words of World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and chairman Klaus Schwab, who wrote in June 2020: “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

But unlike Schwab’s rhetorical gesturing, Fink’s dictum of “go woke or go broke” should not be dismissed as the conspiratorial rantings of Dr. Evil. It has the direct force of capital behind it. Fink carries out what Schwab can only promote with propaganda.

Fink’s “2022 Letter to CEOs: The Power of Capitalism” continues the promotion of stakeholder capitalism, suggesting that stakeholder capitalism has always been the modus operandi of successful capitalist corporations:

Over the past three decades, I’ve had the opportunity to talk with countless CEOs and to learn what distinguishes truly great companies. Time and again, what they all share is that they have a clear sense of purpose; consistent values; and, crucially, they recognize the importance of engaging with and delivering for their key stakeholders. This is the foundation of stakeholder capitalism.

According to Fink, stakeholder capitalism is a not an aberration. He goes on to declare, rather defensively: “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism.”

Klaus Schwab erects the straw man of “neoliberalism”—which he equates with the free market—as the source of economic and social woes for the masses. But corporatism, corporate and state favoritism differentially benefitting chosen industries and players within industries—and not fair and free competition—has been the real source of what Fink, Schwab, and their ilk decry.

Corporatism, otherwise known as “economic fascism,” involves the coordinated production and the running of society by a consortium of dominant interest groups. If anything, stakeholder capitalism is a form of corporatism. Furthermore, despite Fink’s assertion to the contrary, the corporatism he promotes exercises corporate power and relies on state sanctions to achieve a particular ideological and political agenda. That agenda is wokeness. Woke capitalism is thus more accurately called woke corporatism.

Unsurprisingly, stakeholder capitalism has been seen by some conservatives, and even by a few socialists, as a new approach for advancing socialism.1 Yet woke stakeholder capitalism does not advance state socialism as such. Rather, it tends toward corporate socialism. In extreme versions, it amounts to capitalism with Chinese characteristics—an authoritarian state ultimately directing the for-profit production of state-sanctioned corporate entities.

Corporate socialism has a long history, dating back to the end of the nineteenth century. I’ve written about this history in connection with the monopolistic and socialist ideals of one King Camp Gillette, the founder of the Gillette Razor Company. Gillette authored and funded the writing of several books to promote a corporation-based socialism. He argued that socialism is best established by the corporation. Incorporation, mergers, and acquisitions would continue until all production is finally subsumed under one “World Corporation,” with all “citizens” holding equal shares. While this is not exactly the vision of contemporary corporate socialists like Fink and Schwab, they are no less presumptuous or contemptuous of the free market, and they use the rhetoric of diversity, equity, inclusion as a cover for their economic fascism.

Likewise, contrary to “correct” opinion, it is not reactionary to oppose woke capitalism. Economic fascism, in whatever form, is authoritarian and totalitarian. And, as Xi Jinping acknowledged in a recent address to the World Economic Forum, it is not “egalitarian.” It vests economic and political power in the hands of corporate and state elites, and it uses coercion and state power to concentrate the control of wealth in their hands—however much they promise to redistribute it through “social justice.”

In addition to building parallel cultural, economic, and social structures, in the short term, woke corporatism can be challenged by divestment from ESG-abiding corporations and by opposition to the politicians who promote these corporations through legislative favoritism. [source]

More articles on woke capitalism:

• Elon Musk versus the Woke Cartel
• When you are sick, do you want Dr Woke or Dr Smart?
• Conservative shareholder-activists turn up pressure on woke companies

House Republicans demand answers from Biden admin over grants 'to promote atheism worldwide'

From Fox News.com (June 30):

FIRST ON FOX: Several House Republicans are demanding answers from the Biden administration regarding a grant program the Republicans say will "promote atheism worldwide."

Republican Study Committee (RSC) chairman Jim Banks of Indiana led the letter with 14 of his GOP colleagues to President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken regarding the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor’s (DRL) grant program promoting atheism and "humanism."

"The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was officially titled ‘DRL FY20 IRF Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing and Non-Affiliated Individuals,’" Banks and the Republicans wrote.

"It announced a ‘competitive’ process that would award grants of up to $500,000 to organizations committed to the practice and spread of atheism and humanism, namely in South/Central Asia and in the Middle East/North Africa," they continued.

The Republicans pointed out that atheism and "humanism" are both "official belief systems" protected under the First Amendment’s right to religious freedom and said they would "like to know what other United States government programs supported with appropriated funds are being used either to encourage, inculcate, or to disparage any official belief system – atheist, humanist, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise."

Banks and his colleagues wrote that it "is one thing for the Department to be tolerant and respectful of a wide range of belief systems" and "to encourage governments to respect the religious freedom interests of their citizens."

"It is quite another for the United States government to work actively to empower atheists, humanists, non-practicing, and non-affiliated in public decision-making," the letter read. "Any such program – for any religiously-identifiable group – in the United States would be unconstitutional."

"In addition to its constitutionally dubious legal foundation, we also question how such a grant or cooperative agreement program advances the foreign policy interests of the United States," it continued. "Were such programs known by the citizens of the target countries, we would expect that local populations, interest groups, and governments would bristle at what any ‘objective observer’ would see as ‘covert’ funding from a foreign power designed to shatter local religious and cultural relationships."

The Republicans wrote that this is "not ‘religious freedom’" and the DRL’s NOFO on the subject "prioritizes atheists and humanists above all other potential recipients." They also argued that the prioritization violates "both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses" as well as the "the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI" of the Constitution.

"In the NOFO, the State Department characterizes atheists as a unique religious group while then encouraging the building of "networks and advocacy groups" for atheists," the letter read. "This would be analogous to official State Department promotion of religious freedom ‘particularly for Christians’ in China, with the express goal being to build a corresponding missionary network."

"Obviously, this goal that would never pass constitutional muster and would be derided by radical leftist bureaucrats in your agency as completely out-of-bounds," they continued. "So why is this atheist NOFO not viewed with similar objection?"

The lawmakers wrote that "Americans rightly discern this as a part of the broader effort on the part of your administration to promote radical, progressive orthodoxy abroad" and highlighted that atheism "is an integral part of the belief system of Marxism and communism."

"A few weeks ago, the United States Embassy in Germany erected a ‘Black Lives Matter’ flag. Americans should be very alarmed at this. It’s not only that ‘Black Lives Matter’ remains a highly divisive and increasingly unpopular movement here in the United States; the display is also denoting a promotion of a specific radical organization. Other recent initiatives of the State Department include creating a ‘Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice,’ whose mission will be to spread Critical Race Theory and other progressive dogmas worldwide, and working to remove restrictions on abortion around the globe."

Banks and his colleagues concluded the letter with a list of 12 questions regarding the grant program and how it helps U.S. foreign policy.

Joining Banks on the letter are several prominent Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Lisa McClain of Michigan, and Tim Walberg of Michigan.

The RSC 2023 budget proposal would "ban any funds from going to any attempt by the State Department to promote anti-American ideas such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) or to allow the U.N. to audit the U.S. human rights record."

"Last year, the State Department invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on minority issues for an official visit to examine the U.S. human rights record," the RSC budget reads. "The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism E. Tendayi Achiume, is a member of the critical race studies program and is a proponent of CRT."

The Republicans’ letter comes as the Biden administration takes heat for its slew of liberal policies that have raised serious red flags.

From the failed attempt to establish a disinformation governance board to the State Department’s appointment of Desirée Cormier Smith as the Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice.

The White House and State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment. [source]

And Biden’s supposed to be a practicing Catholic? Yea, right.

Elections Now Decide Who Can Operate Your Car

From Mises.org (Feb. 9):

With the approval of Biden's infrastructure bill, it now turns out the US government is even in control of a "kill switch" that could disable your car if you are deemed "impaired." Likely few voters realized the 2020 election was essentially a referendum on whether or not the feds allow you to drive your car. 

Elections should matter, but only if you care who gets the contract to repaint the town sign. However, for questions of individual significance, elections shouldn’t matter whatsoever. And they shouldn’t matter, since a vote cannot resolve questions of significance. Nevertheless, elections do matter, especially federal ones, which explains the rising rancor and sectional division in our society. As the realm of the state expands, the questions being decided by a ballot—whether office or issue—are rarely inconsequential or trivial. Instead, the answers to those questions decide who, through the state, gets to initiate aggression and who suffers the consequences.

This is not how it should be. Consider a question before a voluntary organization that is to be decided by vote, such as five friends choosing where to have dinner. Since the organization is voluntary, the selection should be one that satisfies—at some level—all five. Otherwise, anger and alienation will arise, and some form of secession may occur as one or more members decide to boycott the decision.

From an individual standpoint, there are questions of little significance—say, whether the group meets at 6:30 or 6:40. Then there are questions of some significance, though not consequential significance, questions where the individual decides to remain with the group instead of seceding—it could be an individual preference for a burger over pizza, with the bundle of pizza and group being preferred to a burger and secession. Finally, there are questions which are both consequential and significant, such as adherence to vegan ideals when the majority favors burgers served in a cloud of burnt grease. In this instance, secession might be the peaceful solution. Nevertheless, where partial (nullification) and complete secession are not allowed, issues arise.

Questions of no significance are of no significance—they are de minimis, so to speak. However, questions where the preference to remain in the group is bundled with other questions are of interest. Let’s assume you always favor burgers while your four friends always favor pizza. In this instance, a vote is of no value to you. Democracy will never serve your personal interests. Instead of a vote, you need an agreement giving voice to the minority (you), such as one where each member has a turn selecting the restaurant.

Or maybe you and one friend always go for burgers, two others are stuck on pizza, and the fifth can be swayed either way. In this instance, campaigning and voting might make sense. Those activities may be fun sport for all, with the campaigning and outcome of no real consequence to either side—remember that the preference for the group is, in most instances, higher than the choice of meal. However, depending on the level of subterfuge and similar tactics, the campaigning may poison the outcome and fracture the group. Before this happens, the group should decide whether it wants continued reliance on voting and its associated outcomes or to create an agreement that satisfies all.

Then we have those issues where a vote can never resolve the question. Must a vegan eat meat simply based on majority rule? Of course not. But what if secession is forbidden? What if the majority of the group believes the sanctity of the group exceeds that of the individual, with force holding the group together? Rancor and division must arise.

None of the voting issues above would improve if, instead of a direct vote, the group chose so-called representatives to function as proxies. These wouldn’t be proxies, as they couldn’t be proxies. There is no way an altruistic representative could express the complete desires of more than one voter on any given issue of individual significance, let alone a lengthy agenda. And since representatives cannot vote the desires of their constituents, they are free to vote their own preferences, which are the only preferences that matter to them. So much for representative government.

As I detailed above, questions of individual significance cannot be settled by vote, so they shouldn’t be subject to vote. Questions of individual significance must be settled by agreement that allows for partial (nullification) or complete secession. Any other system implies force and will ultimately end in strife and violence.

We should live in a society bounded by contracts with regard to the essential matters and ruled by voting for matters that are of no real individual consequence. But that is not our world; we live in the opposite.

Now, it turns out our previous presidential election was (inter alia) over a possible kill switch. That is, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed last month, requires the installation and use of technology designed to “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.” And if the driver is “impaired”? Then, the new tech shall “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”

The potential here for abuse, of course, is quite remarkable, as the legislation requires widespread surveillance of drivers and the built-in ability to disable a vehicle. It all carries with it the potential for disabling the vehicle by others outside the vehicle.

Who knew that election would decide this issue? I surely didn’t. Of course, we have no foreknowledge of the impacts of the new law. But we can and should assume the worst. Will a kill switch be realized? And, if so, what will the implications be? Will it apply to just impaired drivers? But who defines impaired? Is a honk in support of an American version of the Canadian truck convoy a sign of mental impairment?

The kill switch, and the power to control it, along with a myriad of similar laws and regulations of consequential significance, are not questions to be decided by vote. Those questions could be resolved by valid contractual agreements, with unanimous approval of all impacted. Yet they are not. The answers to those questions arise from votes that resolve nothing other than the certainty that dissent, disagreement, and division will arise.

So instead of living in a world where I pass the town sign and mutter to myself, “I wonder who got that contract?,” I live in a world where, in just a few years, I may mutter, “Who truly owns or controls my car?” And nothing good will come of that. [source]

Does that mean the Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Fetterman will have their cars disabled if they drive? Probably not. Well, they probably have drivers anyway belonging to the Ruling Class.

Digital Authoritarianism: AI Surveillance Signals The Death Of Privacy

From Zero Hedge.com (Jun 22):

Nothing is private.

We teeter on the cusp of a cultural, technological and societal revolution the likes of which have never been seen before.

While the political Left and Right continue to make abortion the face of the debate over the right to privacy in America, the government and its corporate partners, aided by rapidly advancing technology, are reshaping the world into one in which there is no privacy at all.

Nothing that was once private is protected.

We have not even begun to register the fallout from the tsunami bearing down upon us in the form of AI (artificial intelligence) surveillance, and yet it is already re-orienting our world into one in which freedom is almost unrecognizable.

AI surveillance harnesses the power of artificial intelligence and widespread surveillance technology to do what the police state lacks the manpower and resources to do efficiently or effectively: be everywhere, watch everyone and everything, monitor, identify, catalogue, cross-check, cross-reference, and collude.

Everything that was once private is now up for grabs to the right buyer.

Governments and corporations alike have heedlessly adopted AI surveillance technologies without any care or concern for their long-term impact on the rights of the citizenry.

As a special report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace warns, “A growing number of states are deploying advanced AI surveillance tools to monitor, track, and surveil citizens to accomplish a range of policy objectives—some lawful, others that violate human rights, and many of which fall into a murky middle ground.”

Indeed, with every new AI surveillance technology that is adopted and deployed without any regard for privacy, Fourth Amendment rights and due process, the rights of the citizenry are being marginalized, undermined and eviscerated.

Cue the rise of digital authoritarianism.

Digital authoritarianism, as the Center for Strategic and International Studies cautions, involves the use of information technology to surveil, repress, and manipulate the populace, endangering human rights and civil liberties, and co-opting and corrupting the foundational principles of democratic and open societies, “including freedom of movement, the right to speak freely and express political dissent, and the right to personal privacy, online and off.”

The seeds of digital authoritarianism were planted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, with the passage of the USA Patriot Act. A massive 342-page wish list of expanded powers for the FBI and CIA, the Patriot Act justified broader domestic surveillance, the logic being that if government agents knew more about each American, they could distinguish the terrorists from law-abiding citizens.

It sounded the death knell for the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, especially the Fourth Amendment, and normalized the government’s mass surveillance powers.

Writing for the New York Times, Jeffrey Rosen observed that “before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity.”

Who could have predicted that 50 years after George Orwell typed the final words to his dystopian novel 1984, “He loved Big Brother,” we would come to love Big Brother.

Yet that is exactly what has come to pass.

After 9/11, Rosen found that “people were happy to give up privacy without experiencing a corresponding increase in security. More concerned about feeling safe than actually being safe, they demanded the construction of vast technological architectures of surveillance even though the most empirical studies suggested that the proliferation of surveillance cameras had ‘no effect on violent crime’ or terrorism.”

In the decades following 9/11, a massive security-industrial complex arose that was fixated on militarization, surveillance, and repression. [read more]