Technocrats Use Coronavirus To Drive U.S. To National Suicide

Dr. Anthony Fauci is unquestionably an expert on infectious diseases, serving as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. He has presided over emerging viruses such as H.I.V., SARS, Swine Flu, MERS, Ebola and others. In every case, the rhetoric that emerged sought to force social and political behavior by suggesting a pandemic and prescribing radical action to combat the threat. Where those other efforts failed to gain traction, the coronavirus COVID-19 has succeeded.

Dr. Fauci has now revealed his true Technocrat colors by stepping beyond his role of merely informing policy-makers to making policy directly. This door was opened when President Trump granted him a policy platform and authority to speak for the Federal government. Big mistake.

Since then, whatever disaster that COVID-19 might bring in medical terms, it has been far surpassed by social, economic and political carnage that can only be described by one term: NATIONAL SUICIDE.

Dr. Fauci might be absolutely correct that COVID-19 is 10 times ‘more lethal’ than the seasonal flu, but since his conclusions and predictions are only verifiable by himself, science has essentially become a god and he has become its sole high-priest.

In any case, his scientific and medical expertise in no way qualifies him as an expert in sociology, economics or political science. Yet, he is driving the shutdown of the entire nation to “prevent COVID-19 from spreading.”

Fear Mongering Wins Again

First, alarmist “sky-is-falling” cries were made that millions of Americans could die. Second, the only way to prevent these deaths is to stop contagion by shutting down social and economic activities. Fauci has since claimed that he is open to a 14 day total national shutdown.

That is, shut down sports and community events, schools, churches, restaurants, transportation, factories, services and any other activity where people would come into contact with each other. This insane mentality has now caused national panic among civic leaders as well as citizens.

Ordinary people are  panicked into the irrational hoarding of toilet paper. Really? State governors are firing off executive orders left and right that are essentially promoting a form of “soft martial law” where civic and religious groups above a certain people limit cannot meet. City mayors are shutting down restaurants, churches, schools and government services.

These irrational measures are ripping apart the social and economic fabric of the entire nation. Store shelves are emptied, the stock market is crashing, national economic activity has cratered, all in the name of saving us from the coronavirus.

This is the exact reason why America should NEVER allow Technocrats to run the nation. And yet, Technocrats ARE running the nation anyway… straight into the ground.

When America regains its senses, it will be too late to mitigate the damage. For now, Technocrats like Dr. Fauci should go back to their laboratories to do something useful for mankind and stay out of the business of running the nation.




technocracy

Big Tech Has Created An Unelected, Unaccountable Technocracy

Monopolies are not immediately illegal, but they are anti-American and destructive to liberty and freedom. Big Tech is promoting Technocracy as the monopoly to dominate America, and it will do so if it’s ideology is not fully recognized and rejected by Americans. ⁃ TN Editor

What’s wrong with anti-competitive behavior in big tech?
Anti-competitive behavior on the part of big tech creates an un-elected technocracy

Big tech companies like Google and Facebook are under investigation for antitrust by the the FTC and the DOJ. The allegations are that these companies engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Competition creates winners and losers. Those who compete, compete to win, and annihilating the competition has worked well for big tech — so much so — that it is accused of antritust violations.

But what’s wrong with winning? Why punish a company for being successful by stamping out competition? Isn’t that the whole point — to dominate your market?

Contrary to popular belief, monopolies are legal in the United States. A company can rise above the competition when it offers superior goods or services that nobody else can provide.

“It is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge ‘high prices,’ or to try to achieve a monopoly position by aggressive methods,” according to the FTC.

However, there is a Catch-22.

“A company violates the law only if it tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.”

That means a company can legally have a monopoly, but it can’t legally maintain or acquire one through “unreasonable methods,” so what are those methods?

Determining the difference between anti-competitive behavior and just smart business practice is a slippery slope.

In antitrust cases, it is important to look at what is being protected — competition itself or the losing competitors who cry anti-competition.

Equally as important is the general public — what businesses call the consumer. How can anti-competitive behavior on the part of a big tech company negatively affect the consumer?

These questions are at the heart of the antitrust investigations into big tech. What constitutes “unreasonable methods,” what parties are ultimately affected, and how?

When the consumer is negatively affected by anti-competitive behavior, or when all competition is either threatened, bought-out, acquired, or merged, the company is treading on antritust.

When a company acts tyrannical in denying the entry of a competing company into the market space, it begins to wade into anti-competitive waters.

Likewise, when a company self-serves by blocking competition while favoring its own products and services, which may or not be inferior to the competition, it is traversing in antitrust territory.

When illegal, anti-competitive practices are in place. the consumer gets screwed from a lack of options, the competition complains, and innovation is stifled.

The antitrust accusations against big tech have far-reaching implications on society at large because its greatest commodity is data.

By owning and controlling data on billions of people, big tech knows more about you and I than we know about ourselves.

This gives big tech incredible power and influence to sway public opinion with barely any accountability. It does so by controlling the data and controlling what information you and I can access.

Read full story here…




Shilling: Globalists May Become Extinct Species

Although Shilling has had days of illuminated economic insight in the past, he is dead wrong that COVID-19 is ‘driving the last nail into the coffin of the globalists.’ This is their day of victory, not defeat, because Technocracy has been the endgame. ⁃ TN Editor

The coronavirus’s depressing effects on the global economy and disruptions of supply chains is no doubt driving the last nail into the coffin of the globalists.

They believe in the theory first articulated by Englishman David Ricardo (1773-1823) that free trade among nations benefits all of them. He argued for the comparative advantage of free trade and industrial specialization. Even if one country is more competitive in every area than its trading partners, that nation should only concentrate on the areas in which it has the greatest competitive advantage. He used the example of English-produced wool being traded for French wine—and not the reverse.

But Ricardo’s simple trade model requires economies in static equilibrium with full employment and neither trade surpluses nor deficits, and similar living standards. These aren’t true in the real world. Also, Ricardo didn’t consider countries at different stages of economic development and different degrees of economic and political freedom, or exchange rate manipulations and competitive devaluations since gold was universal money in his day.

Ricardo also didn’t factor in trading partners with huge wage differences such as the U.S. and China. As a result, China can produce almost any manufactured good cheaper than America. The result has been the huge and chronic U.S. trade deficit with China.

Trade wars are normal as countries with insufficient domestic demand to create full employment strive to unload their problems on trading partners. They promote weak currencies to make imports more expensive for residents in order to encourage local production and to make exports cheaper for foreign buyers. Subsidies for exporting companies, now widespread in China, are another tried and true technique.

Free trade is rare. Historically, it has been largely confined to periods when a major global power promoted the free exchange of products in its own enlightened self-interest. That was true of Great Britain in the 19th century after it spearheaded the Industrial Revolution and wanted to insure the easy flow of raw materials for its factories from abroad and foreign markets for their output. After World War II, Americans used trade to rebuild Western Europe and Japan to counter the Soviets, and accepted the lack of reciprocity by some of those lands, notably Japan. This was cheaper and more acceptable in the Cold War era than garrisoning more American troops around the world and risking more military confrontations.

Consequently, there were eight global tariff-cutting rounds in the post-World War II era, from the 1947 Geneva Round to the Uruguay Round in 1986-1994. That was it. The 2001 Doha Round has gone nowhere because, by then, Washington no longer needed to support the free world. Also, U.S. trade deficits were chronic and growing, especially as globalization transferred manufacturing jobs to China and other low-cost Asian countries. U.S. factory positions collapsed from 21.7 million in 1979 to 11.5 million in 2010, with only a modest recovery after the Great Recession to 12.9 million in February of this year.

Largely as a result of these developments, real wages for most Americans have been flat for several decades, making voters mad as hell. President Donald Trump played to their plights and was elected by blaming weak incomes on imports and immigrants. Lack of real income growth also convinced voters in Europe that mainstream politicians weren’t effective. The result was Brexit and an attraction to far right and extreme left parties.

Read full story here…