Category Archives: The State

UPDATED: Conspiracy Or Just Government SOP? (Obola Calling Israel)

Conspiracy, Healthcare, IMMIGRATION, Pseudoscience, The State

Don’t trust the state’s health emissaries. That’s not an unreasonable message to take away from the Ebola dust-up in Dallas. While I am no conspiracy theorist—never have been—I do think the theory proffered below by Prof. Jason Kissner (hat doff to LewRockwell.com) is plausible. Why? Because state operatives, reflexively if not intentionally, conspire to retain their policy mission (open borders always) and increase their sphere of influence.

Excerpted from “The Dallas Ebola Case: An Immigration-Related Process Conspiracy?”

To begin, consider that people like Dr. Sanjay Gupta keep saying that the Dallas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan had “told the nurse” who attended to him upon his first arrival at the Texas Presbyterian Hospital Emergency Room that he had “traveled “to” Africa.”

That’s certainly a very odd thing for a Liberian national, having just arrived from Monrovia, Liberia to the United States for the very first time in his life, to have supposedly said, is it not? Of course, it fits the CDC Checklist used prior to, and including, Duncan’s case, so that must have been exactly what Duncan said, right Sanjay?

Duncan’s status as a Monrovian Liberian national has not exactly been blasted across the MSM news; in fact, the MSM news for the most part has been adhering studiously to the asinine “traveled to Africa” view even though it is grossly misleading.

So why adhere to the view? The chief contention of this article is that we might be observing the unfolding of a “process conspiracy” pertaining to Ebola and the highly contentious immigration issue. The phrase “process conspiracy” is operationalized here as a conspiracy rooted in a policy or policies consciously designed to shape practice in ways such that the output exacerbates the very problems the policy/policies was (were), on the surface, designed to contend with.

The specific object of the Globalist Ebola process conspiracy is here theorized to involve diminishing the linkage, in public consciousness, of Ebola with nationality status. Globalists have huge immigration plans for the U.S., and they do not want Ebola (or any other infectious disease, for that matter) getting in the way of those plans. That is why their Ebola policy protocols—as absurd as they are (discussed shortly)— read the way they do, that is why we have been exposed to a cloud of lies emanating from Dallas and dispersed through the MSM, and that is why Duncan was discharged with antibiotics soon after his first visit to the Emergency Room of Texas Presbyterian.

Because the theory is a process conspiracy theory and therefore rooted in subverted policy, it has application not just to Duncan, but to future Duncans as well. The argument proceeds as follows. First, a brief observation concerning risk is offered which, even though obvious, is necessary because without it the argument will make little sense. Second, the CDC’s Ebola Screening and Isolation polices are examined, and, on the basis of the risk observation, shown to be not only wholly inadequate to the task they were allegedly crafted to meet, but quite likely to make the Ebola contagion problem even worse. Third, evidence is provided in support of the idea that the Ebola process conspiracy theory offers a simple, and very plausible explanation, of certain important assertions of fact, and inconsistencies, emanating from Dallas that are otherwise rather difficult to explain. Throughout, the connection to the issue of nationality status will be obvious.

On the risk issue, people who are Liberian nationals and residents of the hot zone Monrovia clearly present much greater risk than randomly drawn “travelers to” Liberia, simply because the exposure time is likely to be much greater for the former set of people.

Now we turn to consideration of the CDC’s policy guidance on screening and isolation of Ebola patients—and keep in mind that, astonishingly, these (click here and here) are purportedly new policy statements issued in the wake of the Duncan Dallas case, and yet they still do not meet the very problem Duncan-type cases present.

The screening/isolation problem presented by Duncan type cases is this: under CDC policy guidelines, what are hospitals supposed to do when they encounter potential Ebola cases that are asymptomatic, but which involve persons who have not merely “traveled to” certain countries in Africa, but in fact are also nationals of one of those countries who have lived, perhaps even in outbreak areas, at a minimum since the outbreak began? …

READ ON.

UPDATED: OBOLA CALLING ISRAEL. Obama wants Israel to assist in the Ebola effort. Israel says no:

“Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon says assisting in medical relief in Liberia and Sierra Leone would risk infecting Israeli personnel.” … after examining the request and mission details, the Defense Ministry decided against Israel’s participation, saying there was no feasible way to provide for the safety of the Israeli doctors and medical crews, which then could return to Israel and further spread the virus.” (WND)

MORE @Twitchy.

UPDATED: Levin Claims Liberty’s Language (Levin/Mainstream Media & Object Permanence)

English, Neoconservatism, The State

It’s not saying much, but Mark Levin is better than most radio talkers in that he crafts thoughtful commentary daily, rather than resort to taking calls, or to frivolous banter with bimbo producers. It’s, however, truly bizarre for “The Great One,” as Sean Hannity has dubbed Levin, to claim to have originated the term “statism,” coined by, I believe, Ludwig von Mises. Via Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Statism is a political ideology where the central state, rather than the people, are the ultimate source of authority and power.[1] Statism tends towards increased central planning in the economic sphere and a curtailing of civil liberties, which may be deemed necessary by those in power to achieve social or militaristic goals. The term statism is derived from the French word etatism, a term which was preferred by Ludwig von Mises as he believed it expressed the fact that the ideology did not originally emerge in Anglo-Saxon countries but rather was later adopted by them.

It would be comical were it not true, but, in similar vain, Levin could be heard the other day, laying claim to popularizing the use of the term “civil society.”

Plain dumb.

Here is just one use of liberty’s language, in 2003: “… paleolibertarians care first about the effects of the state on civil society.”

Another: “To liberals, the U.N. is the embodiment of civil society.” Here.

Google “civil society” at the ilanamercer.com Articles Archive, and the search will spit up over two pages.

UPDATE (9/26):: Levin/Mainstream Media & Object Permanence.

Most good libertarians use “civil society” and “statism” without second thought. Perhaps Levin has figured that good libertarians are marginalized enough to ignore … Mainstream media generally believe that unless they personally have arrived at certain eternal truths—these truths and their champions do not exist. In psychology we’d say that they lack object permanence, a facility a baby acquires in his first year. What is out of sight doesn’t exist.

‘Scaredy Cops’

Fascism, Law, Terrorism, The State

“[These are the very men who gear up in military assault gear to gang-assault grandmothers and infants in no-knock raids. And they’re whining that a copkiller hunting them doesn’t give THEM fair warning? Please.” So writes the acerbic Vox day (a former WND colleague and a fellow paleolibertarian) about Eric Frein, who “who is charged with ambushing two Pennsylvania state troopers last Friday night, shooting them with a rifle. One was killed. The other remains in critical condition.”

The police should be grateful that the guy is playing fair enough to only target police officers and not police families. And considering that there are “hundreds of officers” hunting him, about the last thing you can call Eric Frein is a coward. Cowards are those who only have the courage to act in packs. Frein is probably a lunatic and may even be a psychopath, but he doesn’t strike me as a coward.
Never forget: you can’t have a police state without police.

MORE Vox.

UPDATE IV: Jealous Of The Scots (What Would Lincoln Do? Drop Daisy Cutters)

Britain, Nationhood, Socialism, States' Rights, The State

Envy ought to animate America, as it watches the push for the decentralization of power—radical federalism—across Europe and in Canada. For here in the US, the legacy of Lincoln has prevailed. He carried out a violent constitutional revolution (instead of pursuing peaceful emancipation like every other nation did), a revolution, which, in turn, sired the modern imperialist, interventionist and highly centralized American State, and outlawed peaceful political divorce.

The sweet sounds of of Scottish secession (to shamelessly mix metaphors) have fallen silent. For now. Scotland voted against leaving the United Kingdom and becoming an independent nation. But only just. The “No” campaign won 55.3 percent of the vote. The Scots hardly “rejected independence,” as Fox News put it. The tyranny of democracy has meant that a simple majority won the day.

Afrikaner secessionist Dan Roodt summed up my sentiments, in an email:

The Scottish referendum is a big disappointment to me, as I had hoped that a “Yes” victory could have unleashed a whole series of independence movements, in Europe, but also here in SA. More and more the Zulus control South Africa, with the media waging a futile campaign against Zuma. So ultimately ethnicity has triumphed over all these other clever theories.

Contra broadcaster Mark Levin—who clings for dear life to an anti-secession sentiment, so as to better love the unlovable: war criminal Abe Lincoln—the healthiest and most intuitive response to deep-seated unhappiness—political or personal—is not a constitutional convention, but a divorce; to exit the abusive relationship.

If Americans try what the Scots have have just done, our states and neighborhoods would be invaded by the federal government. People could die.

UPDATE I: To continue the theme of majority makes right, via Butler Shaffer at LRC.COM:

The mainstream media informed us that David Cameron was greatly pleased by the outcome. It is the nature of politics that this statement is true. Political thinking has trained people to believe in the 51% principle: no idea is worthwhile unless 51% of the public believes in it. But imagine a man with nine children, and four of them dislike the father so much that they want to vote to have all siblings leave home. The vote is held and, by a 5 to 4 margin, the pro-big daddy side wins. Would any loving psychologically-healthy man consider this to be a great personal victory?
Opponents of this measure were quick to announce that the question of Scottish independence has been settled, “once and for all,” words that mean “when we get the outcome we want, the issue can never be brought up again.”
All-in-all, the outcome of this vote was a referendum on the ageless choice people must make between individual liberty and collective security.

MORE.

UPDATE II: If “1 in 4 Americans are open to secession, what does it say about this freedom which Lincoln waged war to abolish? It tells you that secession is intuitive to a very many ordinary folks.

Secession, political divorce, peaceful separation: these are the most natural and best ways to solve disputes. Walk away. This tells you just how aberrant was Lincoln’s war against the South.

UPDATE III:

Nikola Dzhilvidzhiev on Facebook:

In the past week, I heard a lot of arguments from neoconservatives that Scottish secession was ‘because they wanted to be even more socialist than the UK’. Maybe I was a bit optimistic but I believed that the sudden leftward surge in Scottish policy and resultant loss of living standard would have shocked the people and policymakers into understanding that capitalism and free markets are the way to prosperity, á la China.
Until the next referendum, at least, you’re all welcome to join me in shouting Alba gu bráth from the rooftops of the world.

To Nikola Dzhilvidzhiev:

Yes, the secessionist would have had to learn whence come their subsidies and, for freedom’s sake, they would have had to cease and desist the country’s march toward complete socialism. Nevertheless, the CORRECT libertarian view is to support the impetus of decentralization. (Reason magazine is left, Beltway libertarianism).

UPDATE IV (9/19): WHAT WOULD LINCOLN DO? Drop Daisy Cutters. That’s what he’d do.

Rafi Farber emails EPJ editor Robert Wenzel:

Before we decide what to think about Scottish independence, let’s consider what our beloved forefather, Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe, would do if he were head of the UK in the event that the Scots secede from the United Kingdom tomorrow.
Answer: He would make some stupid but eloquent speech about how a House Divided Cannot Stand…and then proceed to bomb the living crap out of Scotland, murdering as many people as possible man woman and child, burning their property and salting the earth. And after he broke their will to fight, he would force them back in the UK and tax the living daylights out of them. Then we would all celebrate him hundreds of years later for saving the country.

MORE letters to editor.