Author Archives: lawofmarkets

“Criminally negligent”

Posted on by
1

That’s how she describes those who fail to provide Ivermectin to Covid patients. This is a doctor in Zimbabwe. This is what the caption under the video is:

Reflecting on ivermectin use in Zimbabwe, Dr Jackie Stone describes how covid-19 is now under control and everyone has the drug in their home medicine cupboard.

The major issue is why Ivermectin is so verboten that no one is even allowed to discuss it, and in some places even allowed to prescribe it. If it actually works, and eventually is seen to work, criminal negligence will be exactly the right word to describe those who have stood in the way of prescribing Ivermectin to Covid patients.

Picked up at Small Dead Animals

AND THIS: Which provides an explanation, of sorts, of why Ivermectin is forbidden since it would make authorisation of experimental vaccines illegal!

As Bret says, we don’t even have a term as yet that would capture the depravity of withholding an effective (and very cheap) medication so that another product can be put on the market instead.

“They don’t know how hard it is to be free”

Posted on by
1

The quote is from an article which is of great interest on its own: North Korean Defector After Attending Ivy League School: Even North Korea Was ‘Not This Nuts’. This is where the quoted lines are found.

Eventually, Park stopped arguing with her professors and “learned how to just shut up” so that she could graduate. She reserved her most pointed criticisms for the woke scolds who constantly lament about being oppressed.

“Because I have seen oppression, I know what it looks like,” she said. “These kids keep saying how they’re oppressed, how much injustice they’ve experienced. They don’t know how hard it is to be free.”

“I literally crossed through the middle of the Gobi Desert to be free. But what I did was nothing, so many people fought harder than me and didn’t make it,” she added.

She actually means none of her fellow students from their pampered backgrounds know how difficult it was for her to escape from North Korea and come to the United States. But I think there is a much more profound meaning in her words.

There are skills and personal attitudes that are necessary for the members of a truly free society to have and develop. Freedom requires that the overwhelming majority of the members of a society are not only self-reliant but demand that the institutions around themselves and everyone else are designed so that each person must work on their own to achieve their own goals and ambitions.

Freedom cannot just be handed down from one generation to another. What must be handed down instead are a series of personal values that are the essential elements that constitute a free society. When they go, so too does personal freedom.

How to translate from woke into English

Posted on by
2

From Combatting Social Justice Rhetoric: A Cheat Sheet for Policy Makers. With these reminders to assist you.

When they say “Cultural Competence“, what they mean is: Cultural stereotyping, which is neo-racist indoctrination in Critical Race Theory, and an ineffective method with no basis is scientific evidence.

When they say “Environmental Justice“, what they mean is: Environmental issues are race issues, which is using environmental protection for unrelated political purposes, and an ineffective way to protect the environment.

When they say “Critical Race Theory“, what they mean is: Race-centered thinking, which is the view that racism is baked into the system and inescapable, that racism is present even if no one is racist, and the view that all disparities in group outcomes are due to racist systems.

When they say “Equity“, what they mean is: Equality of Outcomes, which is a violation of equality before the law, a dismantling of the foundations of a free society, and state management of society, including reparations.

When they say “Social Justice“, what they mean is: Group entitlements, which is a denial of social and cultural differences, of just rewards to individuals who follow the law and act fairly, and the reframing of particular political demands as universal moral imperatives.

When they say “Diversity“, what they mean is: An identity-based approach to society, which is a violation of individual identity, enforced political conformity, political quotas, an attack on merit and a form of soft bigotry.

When they say “White Privilege / Supremacy“, what they mean is: European moral culpability, which is racist scapegoating, especially against economically disadvantaged Europeans, neo-racist scapegoating reborn as “progressive” group stereotyping.

When they say “BIPOC Folx“, what they mean is: Non-European people, which is used for neo-racist policies and stereotypes, racism reborn as “progressive”.

When they say “Racial Justice“, what they mean is: Racial Favoritism, which is using anti-discrimination laws for unrelated political purposes, a violation of equality before the law, and neo-racist group stereotyping.

When they say “Inclusion“, what they mean is: Restricted speech and justification for purges, which is making people feel “welcomed” by banning anything they find offensive; an attack on freedoms of association and speech.

And every form of distortion is part of an agenda to eliminate freedom in the West.

The absolute void of any discussion on Ivermectin

Posted on by
1

Bits and pieces just like this keep showing pouring through my inbox: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ — COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage.

All this is beyond my expertise, but there are lots like it.

Meanwhile, no one in the media, no matter how supposedly on the conservative side of things, ever says a word about Ivermectin. And even though I am aware that the various “vaccines” were developed at the instigation of Donald Trump, whose judgment I normally trust, there are lots of issues that need to be raised and as many questions that need an answer.

But really, why does no one ask about Ivermectin or say a word in public even though there are article like this within easy reach? – A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness, dated February 2021, [“Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:214-216. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191. Epub 2020 Dec 2.”]

There is only so much one can do and go on for only so long

Posted on by
1

What the greatest problem that remains is that so many assume things will stay just as they were but with a new leader. DEMONIZATION IS WHAT THE LEFT DOES: The Demonization of Benjamin Netanyahu: He’s simply an Israeli patriot, but detractors called him an enemy of peace, even a Republican.

Opponents of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, have worked for more than a quarter-century to tarnish his image in the U.S. and around the world.

In 1996, when Israelis first elected him to put a brake on a dangerous Oslo process, Mr. Netanyahu was depicted as an enemy of peace. For three years, his opponents insisted that if only Israel were rid of Mr. Netanyahu, it could make peace with Yasser Arafat. They were wrong. Ehud Barak defeated Mr. Netanyahu in 1999 and offered Arafat sweeping concessions at Camp David a year later. Instead of peace, Israel got scores of suicide bombings and the worst wave of Palestinian terrorism in its history—the so-called second intifada in which more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered.

That was followed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s 2005 decision to withdraw from Gaza. Just as Mr. Netanyahu predicted, Israel’s unilateral concession led only to further aggression. Hamas, a genocidal terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, took over Gaza and turned it into a base from which thousands of missiles have been fired at Israeli cities.

Mr. Netanyahu returned to the premiership in 2009. The preceding bloody decade should have made it obvious to all that Palestinian leaders didn’t want peace. But Mr. Netanyahu was scapegoated again. Now Mahmoud Abbas was cast as a peacemaker instead of Arafat, who died in 2004. While few Israelis believed such nonsense any longer, many foreign policy makers did, including key officials in the Obama White House.

This time, another element was added to the demonization of Mr. Netanyahu: American partisan politics. Not only was he cast as an enemy of peace; he was accused of being a Republican. His critics portrayed his legitimate opposition to a Democratic president’s dangerous Middle East policies as an illegitimate effort to intervene in American politics. . . .

The demonization of Mr. Netanyahu says more about his critics than about him. He was never an enemy of peace; he understood that his critics were dangerously naive. By rejecting their ideas and following a path of peace through strength, his policies not only brought Israel the safest decade in its history; they also brought peace agreements and normalization with four Arab states.

Mr. Netanyahu is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He is an Israeli patriot who has opposed the policies of even our greatest friends when he thought those policies endangered Israel.

Things my yet turn around, but when I hear people worrying about whether women should be allowed to pray at the Wailing Wall when Iran is building nuclear weapons, I despair. The post is from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

Australia’s tragic media

Posted on by
1

How independent do you suppose these two stories are?

First: Fox News Heir Spent $20 Million Opposing Trump. First para:

James Murdoch, an heir to the Fox News fortune, spent $20 million opposing Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection while funneling another $100 million through a nonprofit to support leftwing political groups, according to a new report.

And then, second, from The Australian today: Evangelicals’ faith misplaced in Trump. This is the second last para.

In all the circumstances, and given the available choices, voting for Trump was not unreasonable. Idealising him, seeing him as a cultural saviour, learning to hate all his enemies, letting something of his abusive, spiteful spirit seep into your being, that was a terrible mistake.

That is a classical statement from a journalist employed by the newspaper to present the news. There is a difference on the editorial page, where there is a range of views presented, from the astonishingly deep and readable Henry Ergas through to a number of others who are barely worth a glance at the headline put above the waste of newsprint they publish.

But as for the paper itself, it has been and remains deeply on the left and as anti-Trump as the New York Times. It was, you will recall, this same paper that supported Kevin Rudd against John Howard in the 2007 Federal election.

This is part of the tragedy of the times in which we live.

I guess it will be all right, I guess

Posted on by
1

CDC Revises Vaccine Screener 9 Times in 6 Months. They keep changing things since they keep finding out things. Or in more specific terms, from the link:

Version #1 of the screener advised medical personnel there was “no available data” concerning the safety of getting a COVID-19 vaccine while you’re pregnant, but said “studies and results are expected soon.” In other words, medical personnel were fully aware from the outset that every pregnant woman receiving these vaccines is a full-fledged guinea pig. As is her unborn child.

Version #10 now devotes four paragraphs to pregnancy and breastfeeding. Here’s a portion of one of those paragraphs:

Based on current knowledge, experts believe that COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus. …However the potential risks of COVID-19 vaccines for this population are unknown because the vaccines have not been studied in pregnant people. [bold added]

Experts believe. Bad outcomes are unlikely. But we don’t actually know. Why aren’t patients given this information directly? Why isn’t it included, in stark black and white, on the part of the document provided to people before they receive their shot?

Come back in seven years and then we’ll have a clearer idea. This is the latest screening form. Not all that straightforward. You have to wonder why they want to know.

The socialist proof for the existence of G-d

Posted on by
1

It’s a basic syllogism.

  1. Socialists are wrong about everything that really matters
  2. All socialists are atheists.
  3. Therefore G-d exists.

Number 1 is certainly right but not necessarily Number 2. Still the conclusion is right so perhaps it works in the reverse order as well.

  1. G-d exists
  2. All socialists are atheists.
  3. Socialists are always wrong about everything that really matters

Not as good as the first one. My version of Pascal’s Wager.

Critical Race Theory is racist and therefore intrinsic to the political left

Posted on by
1

First we will look at who goes “blackface”. There was the Democrat Governor of Virginia, not to mention the Prime Minister of Canada.

Nor should we omit to mention that every single member of the KKK in history was a Democrat, with no exception.

But if you want vile and disgusting, there is nowhere better to find it than in the son of the President of the United States: No one will care about the Hunter Biden N-word scandal. And that is just the point. You will NEVER find the story in the American media, probably not even in our media here in Oz. I won’t even put on the page what he said since it really is vile (although you can find some of it at the link), but it’s par for the course, both in regard to the party involved and in the media’s absolute refusal to mention it.

Then there is this just today, and I need hardly mention that psychiatrists are notoriously members of the left although there are a handful of exceptions.

As for Critical Race Theory (CRT) itself, here is a primer in the video below.

Being on the left is a mental disease in and of itself. It wasn’t always, but it certainly is now.