Showing posts with label Tom Woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Woods. Show all posts

Monday, September 11, 2023

Feminism Is Heir to Free-Love, 19th-Century Male Romantics

[Percy Bysshe Shelley is] writing . . . right after Marquis De Sade, 1740-1814, who is all about pushing taboos, and Shelley is good friends with Lord Byron who are all dastardly, awful men.  Shelley's got this trail of dead women from suicide, ex-wives, children who died, children that he fathered but wasn't involved with . . .   --Carrie Gress  
Woods:  What is it exactly the role that the occult plays in [feminism]?  
Gress:  The attraction to it was that you didn't need male clergy.  It was women at home, at the table, who became these spiritual priestesses who are in charge of everything

Carrie Gress, who holds a doctorate in philosophy.  Her earlier book, The Anti-Mary Exposed: The Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity, 2019.  Find more of her work here.

5:00  Starting in the 1780s, 1790s, women have got really hard lives.  A lot of them had a lot of children, a lot of them died bearing children, a lot of the children died, so they were trying to figure out how to help women.  The answer got off on the wrong foot, "Let's help women become more like men."  Add to that all of the ideologically trends and threads.  Mary Wollstonecraft [A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792] is considered the godmother of the movement was very much involved into egalitarianism, which rolls into socialism and into communism, so that thread was there from the very beginning.  I called this concept, "Smashing the Patriarchy," and that started from the beginning.

The next thread that gets picked up is the occult and we can see that in our own time how much the occult and witchcraft is very alive in the feminist movement. 

And then the 3rd piece is the concept of free love and getting rid of monogamy, getting rid of the nuclear family, and trying to allow women to have sexual relations without consequences the way that they perceive men to do.  

So those are the key elements that we can consistently see throughout the 1800s and then they just get on steroids with the New Left and the Second Wave and up to what we're seeing today.  It's incredibly challenging to pin it down and figure out what people mean by it, especially since people have sort of this general sense that it means to be pro-women.  So if you don't embrace feminism, you must not be pro-women.

The term patriarchy came from Mary Wollstonecraft.  She's writing along with Thomas Paine trying to justify what's happened in the French Revolution.  She thought that a lot of the problems that society is having that you can got rid of them by eliminating monarchy, any kind of hierarchy, in the church, in the military, all these things needed to be collapsed down into something more egalitarian.  So that's where it started. 

The first person to really coin "Patriarchy" in a negative way was Engels.  He wrote [Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, 1883] after Marx died [1818-1883] about the family when talking about landowners and Pater familias, and Engels is trying to say that this is a bad thing, and that's where patriarchy gets tagged as a bad thing by feminists and communists; the two really overlap from about the 1930s on.  A lot of people think it's just toxic masculinity or they plug into it whatever concepts they want, which is one reason that has made feminism so flexible. 

10:30  I don't really pin upon her the real heart of the feminist core, because she was a spark for it, but the real core of it came from her son-in-law, Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792-1822, whom she never met but she certainly influenced because he knew her work, he knew her husband, William Godwin's work, who was very much a free-love anarchist, totally against marriage even though he and Wollstonecraft married when Mary got pregnant.  Percy created the movement, ironically, as a man.

11:20  Three people in your story: William Godwin, Percy Shelley, and Mary Shelley.  They all have roles to play, and they all have ideas that are not particularly well-known to the general public.  If we know anything about them it is through their literary works; even with that, we might not know precisely what they're driving at.

11:40  People think of Shelley as this bucolic, romantic poet, highly influential in his 29 years.  He's writing . . . right after Marquis De Sade, 1740-1814, who is all about pushing taboos, and Shelley is good friends with Lord Byron who are all dastardly, awful men.  Shelley's got this trail of dead women from suicide, ex-wives, children who died, children that he fathered but wasn't involved with, really horrendous when you read a biography about what this man was doing.  This was the real fruit of it, Women's Revolution, he called it.  He's the one who put all of these pieces together that had this dramatic effect because while his wife, Mary Shelley is creating Frankenstein and Frankenstein's creature, he's writing about this woman named Cythna, who was the very first independent woman, who was completely . . . she didn't have a husband or children.  Her only relationship was with the Devil, and she really captured the imagination of a lot of women who would later call themselves feminists as this is the kind of woman that we want to be because there's no fertility there; there's all kinds of freedom they imagine.  And it's really this radical idea of breaking taboos, and that's really what that whole Romantic period was focused on was how do we tear down these taboos?

13:15  The Romantics are interesting because there's a part of them that is drawn to things that are far away distance-wise, or conceptually.  Diderot was not a Romantic, though in some ways in that tradition, but he theorized about what intimate relations of people were like in Tahiti, and he developed this wild theory that they all believed in free love when that was not the case.  There was a current in the Romantic movement that was very interested in the Middle Ages because it was distant and remote from us and strange to our sensibilities.

14:00  Also the fascination with the Greeks and a Greek ethos  and morality that is not connected to the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments.  Ushered into the work was how to establish something virtuous without using anything connected with Christianity or even Judaism.  

14:30  Starting with the Renaissance and forward, there was an attempt to portray the Greeks as if they were an entirely religion less society and they just walked around and occupied entirely by reason.  If you actually study what Greek religion was like, it was part of everyday life.  The head of the household was the head of the cult of that home.  They had to make it into the "Little Enlightenment society" that they wanted to live in, so they have to force everybody into that mold and then make the rest of us pretend that was how they really were. 

15:05  Areligious untethered from anything but they think it's tethered to reason, but, of course, we know that reason alone doesn't have the inner structure to lead to a moral society.  Look at how much things have changed in the last 15 years alone.  There's just not enough grounding in that once you take something like the 10 Commandments away.

15:30  The United States now.  A couple of names that will be recognizable to most people: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.  It's not uncommon for people talking about feminism contrast modern feminism unfavorably with what was taught by Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  Do you think that's a legitimate tack to take?

I hadn't studied 1st Wave Feminism.  I'd only studied 2nd-Wave feminism for a book that I wrote

1st-wave feminism, mid-19th century to 1965; 2nd-wave feminism, 1965 to 1975; 3rd-wave feminism, 1975 to 2012; 4th-wave feminism in Spain began in the mid-1990s. 

Betty Friedan kicks off 2nd Wave Feminism.  1st-Wave is really the Suffrage Movement and the early stages of women's rights.  And then the 2nd Wave starts with Betty Friedan and the connection with the New Left where it takes on totally radical overtones related to gender equality, gender erasure, and really changing the culture altogether.  So I went back to Cady Stanton [1815-1902] and Susan B. Anthony [1820-1906] who are just for suffrage, maybe nice writings about women, . . . most aren't interested in reading what feminists have to say.  Judith Butler's work is impenetrable.  Cady Stanton and B. Anthony really branded themselves as a team kicked off the women's movement despite the fact that they didn't know each other until after the Seneca Falls [1848] meeting where Cady Stanton drove her stake into the ground of intellectual territory.  Anthony was also a mouthpiece for Cady Stanton, so the ideas came from Cady Stanton.  One of Susan B. Anthony's biographers spent 4 days burning all of her papers, all of her letters, all of her correspondence, all of her journals, speeches, so we don't know as much about her as we do Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  We tend to think that the time in which they lived, 1848, was puritanical, Victorian, prim and proper Jane Austen sensibility and yet this was more like the wild west.  It was a mess.  Most of their work was done after the Civil War.  This revival is going on but it has all kinds of mediums and seances and contacting the dead, mimicking technologically.  You have telegraphs going up and people being able to connect long distances.  Saw it as a spiritual element.  So many had died in the war, so many children were dying in early stages, and this was really appealing to people to get some kind of solace by contacting the spirits.  Cady Stanton got the idea for the Seneca Falls Conference, where the movement starts, from the Spirit Table [or seance table], now at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C.  Demonic wrappings going on, answering questions akin to a Ouija Board where you're getting answers in some bizarre, esoteric way.  She started out as a Calvinist, but then abandoned her Christian faith and worked to try to get rid of it.  She focused on Spiritualism, which was connected to the seances.  She wrote, The Woman's Bible, which was very anti-Christian cookie.  It feels like a teenager wrote it; it feels very juvenile.  That lost her a lot of followers.  But she actually got kicked out of her own organization when there was this huge scandal that erupted with a woman named, Victoria Woodhull, dubbed, Mrs. Satan, because she was very much a medium in New York state.  She actually ran for president, was a promoter of free love, and the occult.  Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony decided to have her speak at one of their events.  Huge tactical error: alienated much of their audience, but there were other women's suffrage groups that got embroiled in it, because the scandal . . . brought them down and delayed suffrage for 30 years because there was so much in-fighting.  The movement could have done better if Stanton weren't involved in all these esoteric things and the free-love movement, for sure, if you look at the span of their work it was really marked by those things.  Although now all we hear is the polish, their work on suffrage.  Quite the juxtaposition when you look at the details of what these woman were up to.

21:15  This spiritualism I was not aware of until I read your book, but all I could think of was, although he was much later, was Harry Houdini of the 1920s, spending so much of his time debunking these people.  I understand, as you say, why people would want to communicate with the dead.  They just lived through this period of unimaginable loss, and he lost his own mother.  And he said, yeah, what they're actually doing is that they're taking advantage of people who've had a tremendous loss.  But this Woman's Bible was also a surprise, I'd want to see what she was up to.  But the sort of things that get brought up today when people want to cite Susan B. Anthony and Cady Stanton as exemplars of the real kind of feminism, authentic feminism, is that you can find statements they made expressing horror at abortion.  As far as you know, was that sincere?

Yes, Cady Stanton loved being a mother, especially in the earlier years and then later she soured on it.  They were sincere, partially because it was unconscionable.  But there was a place to get abortions in New York City.  Brothels were rampant.  I think it was the era in which they lived

22:45  Everybody.  I mean there was a societal consensus that doesn't exist today.

24:20  These were people who were interested in suffrage.  Obviously you can understand someone who holds feminist views would favor extending the suffrage to women.  But do they also think that women's suffrage would have social benefits as well would benefit society, and if so, how?

24:35  Yeah, I think so.  If they were seeing a lot of women losing custody of their children, if there was a divorce, there were all kinds of issues that if they felt that women had a voice, they could rectify things and women's lives wouldn't be so hard.  That was certainly behind . . . their best of intentions and certainly was a force for it.  You can't fault that.  In many sense that's what they really were pushing for and focused on.  But it got ugly once they included the esoteric and the occult.  

25:15  What is it exactly the role that the occult plays in all this?  Is it simply that they're not Christianity?  There's a lot of things that aren't Christianity.  Why not Buddhism? 

25:35  A lot of the ideas came from this woman, named Madame Blavatsky, who was a Russian noble woman who left Russia and traveled all over the world and picked up all these different religions and cobbled them together into Theosophy.  And actually, Gloria Steinem's mother was a practioner of Theosophy.  I don't even know how you practice it, but she was very much involved.  The attraction to it was that you didn't need male clergy.  It was women at home, at the table, who became these spiritual priestesses who are in charge of everything, who are calling the shots, who are focused on the direction in which the spiritual world is going and it doesn't have anything to do with the church and the church building.  It's sort of inverting that order of what Christianity looked like at that stage.  So that's one of the reasons why it was so important.  It was also about power, too.  And Victoria Woodhall, this Mrs. Satan, their family was always moving because her father was a complete snake oil salesman.  He was wanted in all these different states.  But he had been prostituting his daughters, both sexually and then using them mediums since they were young, young girls.  The fact that these two girls never had an indoor bathroom; they talked about the family going to the bathroom out in the yard, nightmare scenarios of children growing up at that time.  That Victoria had the wherewithal to run for president because she had this brokerage firm that one of the Rothchild's helped her with because she had done seances for him and told him which stocks to pick.  So he was like, you and your sister need your own.  So there was this element of power and control that was also incredibly attractive and this was where the platform came from was by speaking through the spirits and listening to what the spirits told them to gain power and prestige in the culture.  

BETTY FRIEDAN: THE COPERNICAN TURN

27:33  I'd like to take what remaining time we have, and push forward into the 2nd Wave of feminism.  I am quite sure that there are some manifestations of feminism today that Susan B Anthony would not recognize.  But let's talk about Betty Friedan.  I read The Feminist Mystique in college.  Some of her biographical details shed further light into the what she was up to in that book.  Can you share some of those with us?

28:15. She was probably one of the more shocking people that I've researched after Susan B. Anthony and Cady Stanton.  There was a book by a man by the name of Daniel Horowitz, who was a friend of Betty Friedan's, and he noticed at some point, I think she was a visiting professor at USC, and he noticed that she was using Saul Alinsky tactics with her students.  And he thought, "Okay, this isn't just your average housewife; this is a woman who has been trained by Leftists, Marxist."  So he did some digging into her life and he finally asked her, "I want to do this book on you and talk about your communist roots.  I think it'll be a good thing because people will be able to see a how a communist was able to navigate around McCarthy and still be able to promote Marxist ideas."  So he was really a proponent of, you know, like saying see you know all the stuff that she did was great.  So, of course, Freidan said no way.  I will never let you see my private papers, which, of course, are private I think until 2035.  So he just used open source resources and other things he had access to and cobbled together this book that's just really remarkable but very much chronicling her communist path.  She was very involved with Communism even as a college student and deeply interested in the question about women.  Horowitz's book is titled Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War, and Modern Feminism, 2000. I was able to come together some of the things that he wrote and some of the things that Betty wrote with this woman named Bella Dodd, who was also a communist that finally left the Communist Party.  Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen helped her leave the Communist Party, and she later became a Catholic.

29:55. Yeah, Paul Kengor at Grove City College just wrote a book on her, called The Devil and Bella Dodd: One Woman's Struggle Against Communism and her Redemption, 2022.

Her big motivator was that she was an inherent of Stalin's, she hated Hitler.  Her focus was really to get women out of the home.  home.  She has in her journal something, a quote from Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, 1884, about how women will only be free when they are doing productive work outside the home.  So that's her goal. I don't think she realized it, but it's the same concept that Hitler had at Auschwitz, "Arbeit Macht Frei," or "Work Makes You Free."  So she dug into this wholeheartedly but what's fascinating about her is that she doesn't come at it the typical way most philosophers would .  She's coming out at it from a psychological perspective and she uses that perspective to manipulate women into believing it that is what would really set them free.  I'm sure she believed it wholeheartedly.  So she wasn't being disingenuous, but she was using psychology and especially that concept of victimhood that women are particularly susceptible to and fear of missing out, which we see even in Eve, to convince women to get out of the home.  She uses this crazy language and I'm sure you remember the comfortable concentration camp to talk about home and it's pretty galling to see that she can get away with a term like that when she's basically talking to the most privileged women in almost all of human history as she's writing this because of technological advances, the financial windfalls that's happening in the 60s of the post-WWII effort as America's middle class is rising . . . 

31:35. Not to mention that I think Alexander Solzhenitsyn might have something to what say about what life in a camp is actually like.

31:42. Amazing that she was so effective she sold 3 million copies in the first several years [published in 1963] so she's affected everybody.  And I think that one of the things that she really did was to allow women to divorce themselves from children and husband and home in a way that I think was really brand new and that's what led much more easily to the abortion issue because these things were suddenly seen as obstacles too women's happiness instead of a means  through which women can achieve happiness.  So if you're going to talk about some Copernican turn in the movement that's really where where it took place.

That's a great Simone de Beauvoir quote you know if we give women the choice they will not leave the home so that's where for Dan enters in and is like okay let me take care of this and so she makes it appealing and attractive to leave the home and then of course things like Cosmopolitan magazine creating the Cosmo Girl which we now know is very fabricated woman.  The Cosmo Girl could be anything but married and a mother.  Oh, she could not be a mother or a virgin those were the two things that she could not be with their writers. There is a claim that if you can stay home, if you want, but the implication that is if you make that choice that you're not very bright, according to the feminist.  Feminists have defined their position but I think they've also been hugely successful in defining what they think the opposition looks like, absolutely making us look like we are doormats, that we are uneducated, we are stupid, that we just don't know any better, and so that's why we are choosing not to be feminists.  Their propaganda has just been remarkably effective, and I think that's a hard part most women think that they are either one or the other and don't know how to break out of those binary options.

34:30. The women in this book keep pushing for more amoral moves away from the Ten Commandments and really glorifying the masculine, idealizing the masculine, and that's the direction that we went.

Monday, August 21, 2023

When they say medicine is an art rather than a science, yeah, it's kind of a black art, a mumbo jumbo art in some cases

Dr. Richard Smith now said . . . we are not dealing with a handful of bad papers, we are not dealing, as he put it, with a few bad apples, but we're talking about entire orchards that are bad.  . . . that we've reached the point at which we have to assume that the research coming out is just wrong unless proven otherwise instead of the contrary assumption.
 
I have devoted quite a bit of time, especially over the past several years but even before that, to the ways science can be corrupted, the way the influence of the state can have an effect, so I've looked into some of Rothbard's writing on this, but, of course, this topic of how scientific is the scientific establishment these days has become more and more relevant to us particularly in the area of health in recent years, and Tom you have some background in this, not only in your own personal experience and caring for your relatives that many of us have had, but also from your former line of work.  So you were in some way connected to the health insurance industry.

1:35. MULLEN. Yeah, I worked for two different HMOs.  They weren't really HMOsthey were managed care health insurance companies.  In the 1990s, I spent a little over a decade in the street and I was involved in provider relations, so the first company I worked for was a startup in Western New York.  I actually signed up hospital systems and doctors and negotiated all those contracts, actually ran the whole provider side of the operation for that company.  And then I went on to a bigger, more established company and did a lot of the same things.  Although their provider networks were already built, I managed them.  I sat on the review boards for claims that were generally headed by a medical director, physician, and then also chaired by a nurse and also people from operations, so I saw just about every side of that business.  I managed member services while I provided member relations for one of the firms for a couple of years while someone was on leave.  I saw quite a bit of that business.  I spent a decade in it, so I can tell you that the unscientific practice of medicine is nothing new.  I saw it every day back then.  I saw a lot of great doctors, but the industry is kind of rife with almost cultish . . . . When they say medicine is an art rather than a science, yeah, it's kind of a black art, a mumbo jumbo art in some cases.

3:11. WOODS. Well, just the other day, I had Dr. Pierre Kory on and I quoted for him a passage from Dr. Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal in which he laid out the current situation with regard to medical research fraud.  He said that back in the 80s if you were to complain about problem research fraud, you would be considered an eccentric because medical research fraud is no real problem because no patients have been harmed by it.  Science is self-correcting because we have a free and open exchange of ideas.  Richard Smith now said none of that is true, and we are not dealing with a handful of bad papers, we are not dealing, as he put it, with a few bad apples, but we're talking about entire orchards that are bad.  This is not Joseph Mercola talking. This is the editor of the British Medical Journal throwing his hands up saying this.  He says at the end of this passage that I read that we've reached the point at which we have to assume that the research coming out is just wrong unless proven otherwise instead of the contrary assumption.  So when you're faced with a system like that, I bet somebody in your line of work did encounter a great deal of absurdity.

4:33. MULLEN. Yeah and I worked in the business when the anti-Managed Care rhetoric was at its height and really all the management kind of got denuded out of that industry.  I could say that almost everything said about managed care companies and all the movies they make about how they're denying claims left and right just to save a buck are almost all completely false.  And I don't have any emotional attachments to the industry.  I haven't worked in it for over 20 years, but it was really just more or less left-wing nonsense. The anti-capitalist nonsense I sat on the review boards for denied claims and you used to always hear that there were NBA's making decisions on your medical care I was actually an English major but no a physician would make those decisions and that's just one example one of the common things that we saw from financially stressed hospitals it's called the bi-latel   bunionectomy, which sounds very technical but it's basically removing bunions from someone's feet.  And the established medical standard here is to never take a patient that's ambulatory, that can walk, even if they have to be assisted by a cane or something, and make them non ambulatory, bedridden.  But these hospitals would bring them in and remove bunions from both feet and then have to get an inpatient admission which of course sent a call through the roof and these are the kinds of things that we denied after telling the offended are the offending Hospital numerous times you can't do this it's bad Medical Practice you're endangering patients because some people who get bedridden never get up again, especially if they're older.  So these are the kinds of things that we saw and by the time I got into it actually, there had already been so much backlash against any management of care by the organization that we would frequently say that we're just providing information.  But I'll give you a great example of non-science and Medicine. 

Saturday, July 22, 2023

". . . ultimately the way Detroit collapsed was the tax base abandoned it."

Birth rates are falling below replacement levels all over the world.  --Kevin Dolan of Natalism.

Find Tom Woods' show notes here.

So we are really talking about a no babies crisis, a lack of babies in huge portions of the world, and I think we've all kind of had a sense that this was a problem because, of course, we've heard things about social security becoming a problem, Medicare  becoming a problem, that there are going to be huge expenses and bills coming due. But the reason these programs are not sustainable is not just that they're going to be big bills, it's that they're going to be fewer people to pay the bills.  That's the real issue.  I realize that the numbers are different in different parts of the world, but try to give us a sense of the scope of the problem, because I think qualitatively people understand maybe there's been some kind of demographic shift in terms of births but they may not know exactly the full scope of what we're looking at here.

DOLAN.  Yeah, I just . . . in terms of the raw numbers and the consequences, it's going to have on demographics, Korea right now has a 0.78 total fertility rate, meaning that under current conditions, if those conditions were to hold throughout a woman's lifetime, the number of kids that she would end up having is 0.78, so less than one child per woman.  And the way that cashes out from a generational perspective is that for every 100 living Koreans, there will be 6 great-grandchildren, which is . . . I mean, that's not comparable to the smallpox epidemics in the New World; it's not comparable to the black death; it's the most dramatic and drastic population collapse maybe in human history, and it's going to happen over three generations.  That's Korea.

Japan is a little bit ahead of them I think their fertility rate is like 1 point something it's very very low and so that means maybe 9 or 10 great-grandchildren per 100 Japanese. Europe and the U.S. are very similar in terms of their native-born population they are helped economically and in terms of the statistics by migration, so we are all in this situation.  It's worldwide, and in the west it's the most mature, the most intense at this moment, but if you look at the drift of fertility rates across the world, including Africa, including Latin America, including India, and Pakistan, all these places that we think of as like very, very populous very fertile, all of their TFRs, their fertility rates, are dropping like a rock to the point that by 2030 the only region of the world that will have positive population growth on earth is sub-Saharan Africa.  And by the end of this century they will have fallen below replacement for fertility rate as well.

So you can look at it from the cultural and personal perspective it's just millions and millions of people who will be deprived of this very fundamental human experience.  But from an economic perspective, the consequences are going to be absolutely devastating.  I mean you look at Detroit and what essentially happened to Detroit, you can talk about the reasons why everybody abandoned Detroit, that's a broader sort of policy conversation, but like ultimately the way Detroit collapsed was the tax base abandoned it.  The tax base left and so you have just, tens of thousands of vacant homes that had been abandoned.  You had people scattered across this sort of wasteland.  And like abandoned homes don't keep; they fall apart, they get mold, and they get stripped for the copper and the aluminum.  And so even the people who chose to stay the value of their homes collapsed partly because they were surrounded by urban and suburban blight but also because all of our homes and our 401ks and social security, and Medicare, all of the models that give us a sense of like what your home is worth, what your 401k is worth, those are all predicated on reliable economic growth, including population growth.  There's only two ways an economy can grow right you can get more efficient more productive for worker or you can get more workers and currently we're in a situation where productivity per worker is growing it's sort of leveling off tapering stagnating but the number of workers about to drop like a rock and so if these circumstances continue if this demographic collapse transpires away it looks like it's going to you will not be able to count on reliable economic growth anywhere in the western world which means that the way people invest their money sort of what the currency does from an inflationary deflationary perspective all of these assumptions will be up ended and as far as I can tell and from the people that I've talked to who look at these things none of that is priced in none of that is being accounted for by policy leaders by investment leaders Mike is just not no one has taken a serious look at this and it's incredibly and I would say it's the biggest problem of our time of the next century.  

Wednesday, July 5, 2023

Tom Woods and Vivek Ramaswamy on Affirmative Action


Thank you to Tom Woods.  Check out his show notes.  

Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246 created affirmative action in the private sector.

On September 24, 1965, more than two years after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and more than a year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the law of the land, the Nation took a historic step towards equal employment opportunity when President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246.

Saturday, June 3, 2023

 "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."  That's not what privacy is about.

you may not be doing anything wrong today, but regimes come and go.  And social norms change.  You don't know who'll be in power tomorrow, and that data is forever.  It is not going anywhere.  It is in silos that is permanently stored in permanent bases all over the world that is just being maintained by people who love collecting data.  So I would be really careful thinking that just because you're safe today that you're going to be safe tomorrow.  
 

Find Tom's show notes for "Episode 2342: Naomi Brockwell on Protecting Your Privacy." 

His guest is Naomi Brockwell.  Find her on YouTube.  And on Twitter.

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."  That's not what privacy is about.

As someone who believes in a free society, we should not be normalizing surveillance.  If you look at any dystopian sci-fi film, it always centers around the government having access to all of your activities. In every historical authority, in every authoritarian government that we can point to throughout history, they've always had surveillance as a main tool for control. So you do not want to normalize a society where the government knows every single that's going on.  The other thing is that we're all feeding this permanent treasure trove of information about us and that data is forever.

Now, you may not be doing anything wrong today, but regimes come and go.  And social norms change.  You don't know who'll be in power tomorrow, and that data is forever.  It is not going anywhere.  It is in silos that is permanently stored in permanent bases all over the world that is just being maintained by people who love collecting data.  So I would be really careful thinking that just because you're safe today that you're going to be safe tomorrow.  And I would also say about that argument that I'm not doing anything wrong kind of flies in the face of what half the people in the world are facing.  Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a semi-free country.  Some people around the world are literally fighting for their lives, and privacy is the only tool that is keeping them safe.  If they cannot have private communications with people, if they cannot find a way to mask their transactions, they are going to be persecuted. And that happens in so many countries, countries where the black market doesn't just reverse it, drugs or whatever else is on there; maybe it applies to medicine maybe it applies to clothing, maybe you've had too much of your food quota and you're trying to feed your family so we have to realize that norms across the world vary so dramatically and so this idea, when people are snarky about privacy "Ugh, you know, it's just something for bad people. Why do you want to hide your conversations?  Why do you want tm hide your money?  Encryption is just a tool for drug dealers or money launderers," or whatever else, it really is a very privileged position that they're talking from, right, because this is a tool for freedom for so many people across the globe.  CryptoChat is a tool for freedom.  Tor is a tool for freedom.  Private money is a tool for freedom that is keeping people alive.  And even if it weren't, I think it's the individual's right to keep their lives private.  That's what the 4th Amendment was made for: it was to stop unreasonable searches and seizures. And for some reason that 4th Amendment never carried over into our digital lives.  For some reason the government is like "Well, we're not allowed to look through your belongings without a warrant, and all of that, if it's physical, but your digital life, yeah, let's just take all of that, let's collect all of that, and rifle through it whenever we want. And if you want it protected, we'll try and get a backdoor into it."  Like it's a complete perversion of the balance power we're meant to have, and I think it's so sad when people have this knee jerk response of "If I'm not doing anything wrong."  Well that's not really what privacy is about. It's not about doing something wrong. It's about the right to selectively reveal to the world what you want to reveal and I think that we all should have the right to make that choice, which data we want to release, what information we want known about us.  And if the government wants more than that, they can get a warrant.  

7:45.  Search engines.  Google is synonymous with lack of privacy.. They're actively sharing your data to the CIA.

9:15. We're in the age of machine learning, data points like how long you hovered over a search result before scrolling past it actually get collected.  Your mouse movement, you know, whether you're about to click things.  Did you know that if you type into the Google search bar and you don't even press enter . . . let's say like, ah, I want to type in Tom Woods, and I type in "Tom Woods . . . and I say, nah," those key strokes were already captured and sent to Google, so it doesn't matter that you didn't send it.  They already have that information.  And I think that people don't realize how good Google is about taking all of these abstract data points and putting them together in a way that humans can't really find patterns in these things but computers absolutely can because they have way more computational power.  So Google is taking all these data points and is painting an incredible picture of who we all are.  And I think it was the Irish Civil Liberties Association . . . they put out a report where they got hold of . . . basically, the database of all the identifiers that Google uses.  So, that we all know that Google is a search engine, it's a browser, but really it's an advertising company.  It's the largest advertising company in the world.  And what they're doing everytime you load a page, there's a couple of seconds where there's some empty boxes or maybe it's milliseconds and suddenly they're filled with things that are trying to capture your attention--articles, or things to purchase, or whatever.  And what's happening behind the scenes is that Google has said, "Okay, everyone Naomi has just opened her browser and gone to this page, we have these boxes to fill.  These are all of the things we know about her.  Who wants to buy it?"  And so what they're essentially doing is taking everything they know about me and just blasting it to the thousands of approved buyers in their real-time bidding system.  And you can think, who are these people collecting this data?  They don't even have to bid on the ad space to collect it.  They can just be sitting there passively collecting this data.  And those companies are not just ad companies, they're data brokers.  They're government agencies.  And those people are collecting that data that are passing it into thousands more.  Sowe have no control over whose hands this data falls into, and that's a pretty scary prospect.  So I would just be really mindful of all of the ways that we're leaving digital exhaust.  You know you mentioned Google as a search engine but there are more private alternatives.  If you even wanted Google search results, you could use something like StartPage, which is a more private front end for the Google search engine.  So basically, you can look at proxy sites.  You don't have to look at the real websites, your IP address isn't collected, all of these things can really add up and really dramatically decrease the amount of data that companies like Google are collecting about you.  And it's not just Google.  I mean there are people who think that the private and the public are so distinct, and "Why do I care if Google has my information, do they just want to sell me a pair of shoes?"  Actually, it's a lot more insidious than that.  I think a lot of people are thinking about this in a pre-Internet world.  And what's that world look like?  Well, that was a world where private companies had very limited insight into our lives, very limited amount if data that they collected.  And governments had very limited ability to collect that data, too, from private companies.  What is the situation now?  Private companies are collecting every single thing about us and the government has a free-for-all.  There is no 4th Amendment protecting any of this data due to things like the 3rd party doctrine that basically says that if you hand your data over you use the infrastructure of the internet which relies on 3rd parties for everything.  YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.  So they can basically get every single thing about you.  So I don't think there's this straight forward private public divide because at the end of the day Google is collecting all this information and all these companies are collecting all this information and they're basically amassing it into giant treasure troves of data that governments can subpoena, that they can break into it, they can get back doors into it, and as we learned through the Snowden revelations that there are programs like Prism programs where they're just getting direct access to the servers of a lot of these companies.  So I think we need to step away from this divide and just realize how bad the situation has gotten in the digital age that things are so blurry that you do as a conscientious citizen who wants the right to privacy, who wants the right to freedom in their life that we should really be mindful to how much data we're giving to everyone knowing that that data is not protected at all.  And there are so many ways that we can start to protect our data.  Like I said, StartPage is one.  Brave Search is another. 

14:18. A story in her book about Tank Man from that famous photograph of a man standing in front of a tank on Tiananmen Square in 1989.  And one day he disappeared from major search engines.  Can you explain what happened there and what the significance of that is?  

 On Tiananmen Square Massacre, this came up.

14:42. Search engines we often think of as just a privacy violation, but search engines are our portal into the internet at large.  They're in charge of indexing all if the pages, getting these little spiders that crawl all over the internet that collect all of the URLs and basically put them into this index that is searchable.  That also means they have control over what they can show us and it's been shown that there is a lot of censorship of this information.  And people should really be mindful of the things that they're being shown are the things that these companies WANT to show them.  It's like Google, Microsoft, for example, I think it was two years ago now on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.  And Tank Man, that famous image that we all know, the day after the massacre there are ranks rolling down the street, and this anonymous man, I don't think we ever learn his identity, just decides to stand in front of them holding grocery bags.  And it's this amazing image of revolution and fighting against authoritarian control.  Of course, it's banned in China.  They don't want anyone to know about Tiananmen Square.  They don't want anyone to know about this image.  But what was very suspicious was in the United States, in the Western world, on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, suddenly, if you were to look up in a search engine, such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo, I think there were, I can't off the top if my head which search engines they'd applied to but there were a bunch of them but Bing immediately comes to mind.  But you wouldn't fund any result about Tank Man.  Now this is an incredibly famous, famous picture.  You type that in your search engine and you would get zero results.  What's going on there?  What other things are we not being shown?  And how do we get around that?  And I think it was Bing who came out soon after and said "Oh, this is a big mistake.  It was just a bug.  It was fixed now."  So it did come back online.  So it wasn't like China completely infiltrated the Western world and was able to censor.  Obvious from this was that they were able to force these companies to censor these things and were successful.  And it makes you think what other things are they censoring?  What are some of the things that the U.S. government is censoring?  The EU, what do they not want us to see?  Tweak the algorithms.  Brave search allows you to search for what kind of materials would you like to be shown.  Left-wing or right-wing?  Would you like to be getting better sources from PBS?  Only sources from PBS? You can set parameters where you affect the algorithm.  All we're getting with MSM searches is complete opaqueness when it comes to the results.  They all say no, we're neutral and we just build some information but generally, we're showing you all the things on the internet.  Just not true.  We don't know what they're showing us is just completely opaque there's no way to verify that that we're actually being shown the correct things there are so many things that go on it's not just censorship it's also what is being shown first and how is this influencing people's conception of the world. They did some experiments with autofill and it was influencing people in certain directions.

18:32. So if you look up Naomi Brockwell, all you get is "Naomi Brockwell is . . . a terrible person . . . is lazy . . . is ugly . . . is really bad," you'd start to get an impression of who Naomi Brockwell is.  If you looked up Naomi Brockwell and the autofill reads "Naomi Brockwell is intelligent . . . is the best . . . is amazing . . . conquering the world of privacy . . . helping people," completely different picture.  They did experiments in the last election where they looked

Thursday, March 23, 2023

PAPER: "Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US CDC During the COVID-19 Pandemic."

By Tom Woods 

I keep talking about historians of the future -- if we have any honest ones, our "public health" institutions are not going to come out looking too good.

A new paper has just been released that I thought you might want to know about. It's called: "Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic."

The paper has four authors, three of whom are academics at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of whom (Kelley Krohnert) is an independent scholar.

Kelley, I am happy to point out, was a guest on the Tom Woods Show after she, an independent analyst affiliated with no university or institution, demolished the CDC's scaremongering claims about the threat of Covid to children, claims that were obviously intended to encourage panicked parents to give their children the shots.


Eighty percent of the errors the four authors examine in this paper involve -- what a surprise -- exaggerating Covid risks.

As one of the authors, Vinay Prasad, put it:

These errors are going to be hard to dispute. They are factually wrong . . . . 

The CDC uses statistics that consistently inflate deaths among children, while it recommended many restrictions on this age group.


These are not errors of interpretation or preference but demonstrably false numbers. Horrific that the CDC has made these errors and in some cases still [has] not issued a correction, and even repeated the errors . . . .

We need more papers like this!  

Monday, October 3, 2022

Remember when Congress used to declare war?

Article 1, Section 8 enumerates war powers of Congress.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has only declared war only 5 times.  Think of how many wars the U.S. has been involved with . . . exactly . . . scores of wars without Congressional declaration.  Those five wars were declared by Congress under their constitutional power to do so were the 

War of 1812 [1812-1814], Mexican-American War [1846-1848], Spanish=American War, World War I [1916-1918], and World War II [1941-1945].

The first war the U.S. engaged in without a declaration was the 1950, Korean War.  

The Korean War was the first modern example of the U.S. being taken to war without a formal declaration, as has been repeated in every armed conflict since.  

Here is Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 11 through 16

“The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

“To provide and maintain a Navy;

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

—U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clauses 11–16 

In talking about the pending Iraq War in 2002, Ron Paul writes, 
only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is – a war – and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war.

What's sad is that the United States has effectively surrendered this Constitutional power to the UN by waiting for a UN resolution to tell the president to go to war rather than Congress.  Pity.  So, when you hear "resolution" or "Resolution Wars Act," just note that the U.S. has surrendered its constitutional authority to declare war over to the United Nations.  

Though it's Congress's authorization to declare war, some have argued that the President has the powers to direct hostilities.  Tom Woods breaks this down thoroughly.  

But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

So I think Tom Luongo above is correct.  The British MI6 will craft a story that will push the U.S. through a UN resolution into war. 

Wednesday, September 21, 2022

BREAKING: After my report, Vanderbilt’s transgender clinic has deleted their entire website. Literally the whole thing. They’re removing everything.

All because Matt Walsh asked the question, What Is a Woman?  Maybe it's a little more than that.  This should give some insight.  

 

Be sure to read this by Matt Walsh.

Tuesday, September 6, 2022

How to Invest in Crazy Times with Larry Lepard

 
If we have inflation for the next 10 to 15 years, bonds are doomed.  Growth stocks are doomed.  If you go back and study the 1970s, what you see is that the good performing investments of the 70s were commodities--gold, oil, . . .  Bonds got destroyed because of inflation and regular . . . .  

Start with a big theme.  Make sure you are on the right side of a macro trend.  We're no longer in a deflationary world; we've entered an inflationary period.  It may not last more than 10 years, but certainly we're only a year or two into it.  
In general, Commodities of stuff versus bonds and growth.  This is Uranium, this is oil, this is lithium, gold, silver, wheat . . .  In this period of deflation, the market got the wrong signals, and we under invested in the things we need to live our lives. When we finally broke out of the down trend, inflation was so virulent.  We've had really bad inflation and sadly we're not going to be able to solve it instantly because we've had the inflation, in large part, because the supply . . . we haven't had the supply. 
We haven't invested in supply.  Investing in supply in this situation takes time.  You don't just turn on the tap and suddenly you got more oil; suddenly got more wheat, turn on the tap, and suddenly got more gold.  I mean it takes capital and it takes time to provide more supply to bring prices back in line.   I've been focusing on silver and gold, silver and gold mining stocks, but take a look at lithium.  I mean everyone says we need to go to more efficient cars; we need to have a more efficient car fleet.  That may not look that smart if electricity costs continue to go up.  But if were trending toward an electric car fleet, we need lithium to make those batteries.  The world in 10 years will need ten times the amount of lithium that we're mining now.  So, companies that are mining lithium are about to do extraordinarily well.  Get in front of a major trend that has years to run.  Apple and Google, for example, it's growing at 5% a year and trading at 25x earnings.  It's the best technology company in the world.  No doubt, but it's trading at 25x cash flow.  I've got gold mining companies that are growing at 50% a year and are trading at 3x cash flow.  That's a big divergence, right?  

Monday, January 24, 2022

"As for me, I've had it with masks. I feel like a fool, and I am not going to play anymore."

The question was, "In general, do you trust [what] Dr. Fauci has said about the coronavirus or not?" The results were 43% no, and 40% yes.

Compare those results to 60% yes and 8% no in April 2020.

From Tom Woods

These days it seems as if everywhere I turn, a new person is saying the whole thing is stupid and I'm not doing it anymore.

This time it's an editorial writer for USA Today.

Headline: "I am done with masks. We've been idiotic about them since the beginning."

He begins with this: "Who knew that little pieces of plastic or cloth worn over the nose and mouth could turn people into complete idiots?"

In response to Dr. Leana Wen's [the Chinese-American, flip-flopping, goalpost-shifting version of Anthony Fauci] recent observation that cloth masks are nothing more than "facial decoration," he responds, "Well, I feel like an idiot for all the times I donned a facial decoration and forced my kids to do the same."

He dismisses the drive for N95 masks as unreasonable and concludes: "As for me, I've had it with masks. I feel like a fool, and I am not going to play anymore."


Then, too, Bari Weiss, formerly of the New York Times opinion section, made waves on Bill Maher's program recently when she declared herself "done with COVID," and swatted down the standard arguments with data.

The only thing missing was: I'm sorry for going along with it all this time and demonizing people who said then what I'm saying now.

The whole "we now have new information" thing from Weiss and others is disingenuous. We knew very early on that the crazies were wrong and that nothing they recommended did any good. A simple "stay home when you're sick" would have been better than their entire mitigation program.

Having said that, I by no means decline Bari Weiss's membership in Team Reality, and I'm happy to see our ranks continue to grow.

Before I reveal the happiest of the three items I have to report to you today, in terms of the evolution of opinion, I want to make sure you know a term.

Surely you know "red pill" and "blue pill," from The Matrix. You and I are red-pilled. We understand the nature of the regime that rules over us. We don't accept the establishment version of events.

The blue-pilled are those who even now still think the public health establishment just has the best interests of Americans at heart and should be trusted to do sensible things.

A white pill, meanwhile, is a source of optimism for us.

And now for a white pill:

A recent NBC News poll--so not exactly biased in our favor--finds more Americans distrust Fauci than trust him.

The question was, "In general, do you trust [what] Dr. Fauci has said about the coronavirus or not?" The results were 43% no, and 40% yes.

Compare those results to 60% yes and 8% no in April 2020.

Meanwhile, Ireland just announced it's dropping most COVID restrictions, and England (not the UK as I mistakenly said the other day) is dropping its mask mandate and vaccine passport system.

Austria keeps putting off its mandatory vaccination program, and there are murmurs in England about pushing the vaccine mandates for NHS workers back six months.

We're almost there.

With next to no high-profile support, and with every major opinion-molding institution against us, we've begun to turn the tide.

What you and I say and do is not in vain.

And speaking of that, here's how I can help amplify your voice:


If you've ever considered starting a website or blog, you know the main problem facing you: nobody visits.

Well, remember my publicity offer: get your hosting through my link and you'll not only get a good price, but I'll also publicize your site to get you that critical burst of initial traffic. Not to mention membership in my mutual-help bloggers' group (this will help you out of many a jam), free tutorials to help you get started, and more. Get the details:  http://www.tomwoods.com/publicity

Find Tom's podcasts here.

Friday, September 10, 2021

Former OSHA Engineer on How to Resist Biden

Tom Woods writes

From the comments section of this post comes the following:

As a former OSHA engineer, should the gov’t proceed with using OSHA to enter businesses to enforce this garbage, Employers have the right refuse entry and request that they obtain a warrant.  Now, once you do this, the scope of inspection may change from an inspection limited to the initial scope, to a comprehensive inspection of your entire business. But in my opinion, this step is necessary for every employer to do for, for a few reasons.

1. It buys time.

2. If all employers do it, it bogs down the system since each warrant must be taken to and signed off by a judge.
3. OSHA lacks the resources to effectively inspect every business which does this. (They can’t keep up with their current workloads and many have employees have already left).

4. Be difficult (this is not always the best advise when dealing with OSHA, but this is not your “normal” time)

5. Don’t pay fines, don’t negotiate, ignore them.

It is right for employers to fear being fined or shut down, but they cannot shut down a society which ignores them. Most of our instinct is to want to follow rules. But I argue that this is a different time and it is time that we collectively stand against this. If you still have difficulty convincing yourself as an employer that you can go down this path, just think of what more comes for you down the road thanks to your compliance now.

Read the original article at TomWoods.com.   http://tomwoods.com/former-osha-engineer-on-how-to-resist-biden/