As technology climbs the curve governments will become road kill

Bad news: Government is getting bigger and more oppressive.

Good news: As it gets bigger it also gets weaker.

Better news: Technology is making us, as individuals, stronger.

How do we know government is getting weaker?  Because it is sustained by central bank counterfeiting and debt, and the lies of state sycophants.   How long can massive fraud last?  The whole apparatus of government — a bandit gang writ large, in Rothbard’s famous depiction — is an affront to civilization and human dignity.  Yet it’s the absence of government — anarchy — that we’re supposed to avoid at all costs. We’re avoiding it, all right, and we’re paying dearly for it.

Meanwhile, a quiet revolution is ongoing that almost no one seems to understand, yet is talked about incessantly: The rising power of technology.  Without asking our permission, technology is taking us down the path to anarchy.  How is this so?

Technology today is climbing up the curve of the exponential but if you look at any one point it appears linear.  In our day-to-day lives we are looking at points, seeing incremental improvements but nothing that would suggest radical innovation.  Yet it happens.  We see magic but consider it mundane.  We have smartphones that can transmit live video from around the world, and say “So what?”  We read about a young programmer who builds a self-driving car in his garage, and say “Huh.”   We need to step back and look at the trend to see where all this is going.  

Ray Kurzweil explains (The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, 2005):

Early stages of technology – the wheel, fire, stone tools – took tens of thousands of years to evolve and be widely deployed. A thousand years ago, a paradigm shift such as the printing press, took on the order of a century to be widely deployed. Today, major paradigm shifts, such as cell phones and the world wide web were widely adopted in only a few years time.

He adds:

A primary reason that evolution— of life-forms or of technology— speeds up is that it builds on its own increasing order, with ever more sophisticated means of recording and manipulating information. . .  [p. 39]

For example,

The first computers were designed on paper and assembled by hand. Today, they are designed on computer workstations, with the computers themselves working out many details of the next generation’s design, and are then produced in fully automated factories with only limited human intervention. [p. 40]

As the technology continues to build on itself, it will eventually take “full control of its own progression.”  It will no longer need human intervention.

But fear not, he says.  In the future we will not see super-smart robots controlling or wiping out humans; rather, what will evolve is a merger of humans with their technology.  Humans, as his book’s subtitle tells us, will “transcend biology.”  Kurzweil:

It would mean that human performance is not necessarily dependent on the biological substrate that comprises our brains today. The biological information processing in our brains is, after all, much slower than information processing in conventional electronics today. Information in our brains is transmitted using chemical signals that travel a few hundred feet per second, which is a million times slower than electronics.  [p. 122]

We will reach a point when “the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed.”

Or as Kevin Kelly, founder of Wired Magazine, puts it: "all the change in the last million years will be superseded by the change in the next five minutes.”

Before we can say “So what?” again we will have reached what Kurzweil and others call the Technological Singularity.  

Inexorable and universal

Kurzweil refers to this progression as the law of accelerating returns.  It is “inexorable,” and his books are packed with charts showing why this is so.  According to his prediction the law will reach the Singularity by 2045.  It sounds incredible but so have most of his other predictions that have played out to be true.    

He also considers the progression to be in terms of price-performance, meaning that “all of these technologies quickly become so inexpensive as to become almost free.” [p. 430]  It’s not the case that only the rich will have access to them.

But what about government?  Won’t it feel threatened and impede innovation?  As Kurzweil points out, “the nature of wealth and power in the age of intelligent machines will encourage the open society. Oppressive societies will find it hard to provide the economic incentives needed to pay for computers and their development.” [p. 128]

He brings up a crucial point: The law of accelerating returns has always operated under government-controlled conditions.  Government wars, depressions, genocides, currency debauchery, regulations, etc. have not slowed it down, or at least not for long.  To repeat, the law is inexorable.

Innovation has a way of working around the limits imposed by institutions. The advent of decentralized technology empowers the individual to bypass all kinds of restrictions, and does represent a primary means for social change to accelerate.  [p. 472]

Technology in the hands of the government can be a nightmare.  But as it disperses into the lives of individuals it becomes empowering.  Over time it quietly undermines government power, as Gary North tells us:  

Technological innovation is not going to be stopped by any local government, state government, national government, or the World Trade Organization. Technological innovation is about as close to an autonomous process as anything in history. 

Technological innovation is decentralized on a scale never before seen. Because of the Internet, because of 3-D printing, and because of innovation of all kinds, technological innovation is a tsunami that is headed for all government welfare programs, all government central planning, all government regulatory agencies, every labor union, and every good old boy network. Technological innovation is simply sweeping everything before it. 

This is going to change the whole shape of civilization, and it isn't going to take three generations. It is fairly far advanced now, and another 40 years of this is going to change the political landscape entirely.

I say 20 years, but either way government is doomed, liberty is enhanced.

That, I submit, is a comforting thought.

***

The preceding is taken from Chapter 5 of my book, The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of Liberty.

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

Take stock of our assets

No one knows what the future will bring because the future doesn’t bring anything.  People do.  You and I and the rest of the world make the future, some more so than others — some a lot more so.  The leading future-makers of the past century — at least those who entered national politics — have left a long trail of blood and misery, and today’s political leaders are staying the course. 

There’s an old saying: “Man proposes, but God disposes.”  In other words: "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

If the U.S. government is today’s god, what chance do a relative handful of freedom-loving people have against such an institutional behemoth?  We’re only a false flag away from martial law.  The internment camps are built and ready for occupancy.  The police are militarized and ready to carry out orders.  The voters remain insouciant.  This is no time for optimism.  It’s time to run for our lives.

But before we take off, we would do well to take stock of our assets.

There’s a scene in the Clint Eastwood movie “Absolute Power” that illustrates the point I wish to make.   Eastwood, as legendary jewel thief Luther Whitney, witnesses the murder of a young woman during one of his heists.  The president (Gene Hackman) and his SS agents are the murderers.  The victim is the wife of the president’s biggest supporter, an octogenarian billionaire (E. G. Marshall) whose mansion Luther was robbing.  Whitney was hiding behind a one-way mirror at the time but later learns he’s a suspect, because of the missing jewels.  Luther knows the president’s henchmen will try to kill him before he can expose them and rather than fight such a powerful foe makes arrangements to leave the country.

While at the airport ready to depart he sees a staged press conference on TV.   It’s an appalling political spectacle.  A mournful president is offering sympathy to the bereaved husband, who’s standing beside him.  “This man has been like a father to me,” he announces, then turns to his friend. “I would give the world to lessen your pain.” He blots his eyes, apparently too choked up to continue.

Luther simmers with fury.  “You heartless whore,” he says aloud to the TV.  “I’m not about to run from you.” 

Luther rediscovered his true grit.  

He also had conclusive evidence in his possession, as well as a daughter he cared about.  What about you?  If optimism still seems like a stretch, ask yourself what it would take for you, an informed libertarian, to be pessimistic.

A libertarian's assets

First and foremost, you would have to view your “informed libertarianism” as thoroughly grounded in blind faith, not to mention wrong.

More precisely, to be pessimistic you would have to believe that the Keynesians are right, that Fed-inflated recoveries are indeed real and not a bubble; that free markets are inherently flawed and in need of regulation, debt-financed stimulus, bail-outs of the big boys, and an instantly-inflatable money stock to shore up emergencies.  You might long to be free, but the economic truth is, notwithstanding such longings, freedom in a social context is a return to the robber baron days of the 19th century.  

Along with this, you, an informed libertarian, would have to believe that Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Salerno, Hulsmann, DiLorenzo, Paul, Rockwell, de Soto, Shostak, Woods, North, Murphy, and many other Austrian authors were either grossly ignorant or lying when they championed unhampered free markets and sound money as the necessary precondition of peace, freedom, and prosperity.

Along with this, you would have to ignore the overwhelming data showing that market economies improve living standards and concede that what we need is more government in our lives.

For a libertarian to be pessimistic, you would have to believe that bureaucrats and other time-servers inoculated against market forces will outwit entrepreneurs in the long run.  You would have to believe that politicians who steal your money to start wars and bail out their friends contribute more to our welfare than Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, or Jeff Bezos and countless other entrepreneurs. 

As a pessimistic libertarian, you would have to believe that central bank counterfeiting produces a sound monetary system, that a market-selected money inevitably goes astray, that money under control of a politicized committee produces the best results for everyone, and that a managed monetary system will last indefinitely.  You would have to believe gold is truly a barbarous relic, of no more value than a pet rock (when in fact it's more like a door stop, where "door" refers to government).

Along with this, you would have to believe that in this age of Wikipedia, web browsers, Khan Academy, Mises Institute, YouTube, the Ron Paul Curriculum, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, texting, email, TED, the proliferation of web-accessible computing devices, and the high web traffic ratings of libertarian web sites, the government will maintain its grip on education, keeping the vast majority of people clothed in tax-funded wool, inculcating the population with the court view of history, with the state/Keynesian view of crisis management, and getting them to swallow whole the pronouncements that pass for news and rational commentary on banker-controlled media.  

Along with this, you would have to believe John White, Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Serpico, Perry Fellwock, Mark Felt, Michael Ruppert, Frederic Whitehurst, Karen Kwiatkowski, Jesselyn Radack, Sibel Edmonds, Joseph Wilson, Samuel Provance, Russ Tice, Thomas Andrews Drake, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and numerous other whistleblowers are cowardly traitors and are universally regarded as such.  You would have to believe that these people were determined to subvert the lawful undertakings of government rather than exposing the government’s heinous wrongdoings.

Along with this, you would have to believe that the decentralizing, deflationary, and individual-empowering character of information-based technologies, which has been advancing at an exponential pace at least since 1890 and which is powering research in other fields such as medicine (where 3-D printing is producing surrogate body parts) — and which has put in your pocket a device with more computational power than an early 1990s supercomputer — will slow significantly because engineers and researchers are at a loss to move us beyond the current computing paradigm, Moore’s Law.  

Conclusion

It’s challenging to be a pessimistic libertarian.  Luther was nearly assassinated and his daughter almost killed in “Absolute Power,” but in the end everything worked out. 

Don’t let the fact that the movie is fictional discourage you.  Use fiction as a guideline and make your own movie real.  If you feel your optimism fading turn up the grit and move ahead. 

***

The foregoing was extracted from my book, The Fall of Tyranny, the Rise of Liberty.

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

Political Litmus Tests Made Easy

"We have what it takes to take what you have.” -- Proposed IRS motto

 

One can easily spot a libertarian by their position on taxes.

One can easily spot a Democrat or a Republican by their position on abortion.

Fascists, communists, socialists and others dependent on force have their particular litmus tests but share a common premise: The necessity of the state.  The state — the legal monopoly on violence — whether total or minimal, is a necessary component of their political position.

This brings up the subject of anarchy, the name given to those who reject the state altogether.

Have we have named all possible political positions?  Almost.

What do we call people who favor government by the voluntary relationships of the market and its natural incentives toward peace, prosperity, and harmony? 

They too could rightfully describe themselves as anarchists, according to this definition: 

A political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

But this gives us conflicting definitions of anarchy.  One that rejects the state as a means of rejecting government.  The other that rejects the state as a way of implementing government.

The pro-government anarchists believe the path to civilization is not based on a mixture of compulsion and freedom; it is based on freedom alone.

For these people the free market, properly understood, is the path to peace and prosperity — the path to civilization.  The state prevents this from happening.

Political elections, fraud, taxes, inflation, fiat money, war, intel operations, government debt, Liz Cheney, AOC, Hillary, Biden, The Great Reset — and much more — are enemies of the free market because they are positives for the state.

Civilization is more than possible, it is well within our reach. 

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

If free markets work, why do we have a state?

Libertarians call for a free society but few bother to define what this means or explain how to achieve it.  For most a free society is one with a limited government.  But how do we keep it limited?  Who gets to define the limitations?  How many people today even want a limited government?  Not many, or libertarianism would be more popular.

The path to this limited government ideal is cleared by unlearning the fallacies government schools have taught us.  But if the unlearning is consistent, the result will be to wipe government as we know it out of the picture altogether.  Not even libertarians want that.  Why else would there be a Libertarian Party?  Someone has to oversee a limited government to make sure it doesn’t meddle unnecessarily in our lives, and libertarians of the Libertarian Party are presumably most fit for the job. 

You don't have a free society when a monopoly of violence exists at its core.  It's the seed of everything that goes wrong.  Libertarians thus are stuck with an inconsistent premise.  The sacred nonaggression principle seemingly must coexist with an agency of aggression, allowing some people powers that are legally forbidden to others.

For many, being without a state would feel like open season on their lives.  And as we've witnessed here in the U.S., a minimalist state tends not to stay minimal.  

Suppose, though, that anarchy isn’t the ultimate political horror?  What if “anarchy” serves as cover for a free market and a free society generally?  What is it about the free market that it can provide almost all, but not quite all, of society’s needs?  Is it possible that’s a myth—or worse, a hoax?  

Free markets work

It's believed that if people are free they are incapable of establishing certain services such as courts and law, and national defense.  Here is where the free market would shine.  Under state dominance, justice is expensive, slow and often denied, while national defense has become its opposite and a source of wealth- and life-draining corruption.  

Why can’t free men (and women) decide on their own to institute courts and advertise their benefits to the public?  Why can’t others do the same and attempt to persuade the public their courts are better?  And wouldn’t it be possible that some people would prefer the courts of A while others subscribe to the courts of B?  And couldn’t they agree on a binding method of conflict resolution?  

Who among us would feel safe without a means of protecting ourselves from foreign invaders?  Given the likelihood that insurance companies would undertake defense services and have an incentive to minimize claims, wouldn’t they tend to promote peace while having the requisite means of defending their clients from attacks?  

What would happen to the needy under a free market?  Would they be left to perish in a so-called dog-eat-dog world?  Other people, acutely aware of their own vulnerability, have proven to be charitable even in an age when government has grabbed the welfare reins.  In days before the welfare state, charity was the pride of the semi-free society we once had.  

Would income disparity exist under a free market government?  Absolutely, just as disparities exist among people in all areas of life.  But the fortunes made by some would depend largely on their ability to satisfy customers, not on their nonexistent political connections.  Under coercive government Burton Folsom’s political entrepreneurs (the real Robber Barons) thrive at the public’s expense.  

Conclusion

When you hear “anarchy,” think “free market” and remember all the blessings it has brought us — and when you hear “government” consider this observation from Robert Higgs:

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

 

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

The criminal science goes after our youth

Since the 1950s the New York Fed has become known as a producer of comic books for young readers, presumably to ease the pain of learning something about "the dismal science" — a derogatory term for economics.  

Truly, the way economics is taught on any level it is closer to criminal than dismal. 

To succeed in a society that still retains some respect for truth criminal theories need to be presented as respectable, ideally with the backing of “the best and the brightest” who are either not so bright or corrupt to the core.  The NY Fed’s comic book The Story of the Federal Reserve System illustrates this cover-up approach.  

While reading the 21-page booklet I was reminded of the expression, “Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies.”  The high school and undergraduate audience for which this is intended will not be dutifully unquestioning.  If nothing else the last few years have raised suspicions among people who were paying attention.  Bright young people with phones and computers pay attention.

Here is how the comic book opens:

“Way, way out, at the edge of the universe…. The planet Novus is experiencing its first economic crisis.

“After an unforeseen ice cream setback, a local business was unable to repay its loan…

“…which put stress on the bank that made the loan…

“…which led to a panic!  Everyone on Novus ran to the bank to take their money out of the bank at the same time.”

Enter President Tilli, who says,

“If we take all the cash from our banks, the whole system will collapse.

“People will lose everything they have worked so hard for!”

Later, in a conference room:

“Instead, the citizens of Novus decided to come together and create a central bank to loan money to other banks—to act as a lender of last resort.”

As the story progresses representatives from Novus visit planet earth to study how the Fed works.  They are told: that the Fed is actually decentralized across regions of the US; that it helps keep the economy running smoothly, and prices stable, by affecting the amount of money and credit that flows through the economy.  Too much lending spurs higher prices, too little leads to falling prices. 

The mysterious gold vault

Curiously, the comic book also mentions the gold vault buried deep under the New York Fed.  It exists, no explanation as to why it exists.

Let’s hope it prompts young people reading this to frown.  What’s up with that? 

Why bury anything?  Why gold?

Maybe the young reader will ask other questions.

The comic book says the Fed was created by Congress in 1913 and signed into law by President Wilson.  By Congress?  Why did Congress get involved?  Why not set up a central bank the way other businesses are set up, without the aid of a special law?  

The Fed was supposed to prevent all those “Panics” that happened in the 19th century.  But have they?  Financial problems are still around, possibly worse than ever.

Where does the Fed get the money to shore up banks that ran out of money?  For that matter, what is money?  Is it something the Fed creates?

It says too much lending will cause “overspending and rising prices” and cause inflation and possibly a crisis if the boom goes bust.  Why are people at the Fed making this decision instead of the people doing the lending and borrowing?

And what exactly is inflation?  Rising prices?  Is inflation better understood as inflation of the money supply?

And why did the banks run out of money?  If a bank is a safekeeping institution it would keep all its deposits for a service fee.  How could it run out of money, unless it did something illegal, in which case it should be penalized? 

If it’s an investment institution running out of money it’s the risk the investor (and the bank) takes.  So why the big panic when this happens?  The bank fails.  So what?  Other businesses fail all the time.

Perhaps the deeply buried gold vault will continue to haunt the young reader and prompt him to do other reading.  

He will read that gold (and silver) coins were once money.  What happened to change money from coins to paper bills issued by the Fed?  And only the Fed?  Gold is sometimes called a "barbarous relic."  If it's a relic why bother to secure it?

He reads further that bankers complained about the lack of an “elastic currency” before the Fed came along.  An elastic currency he learns is one that can be created at will — but not by anybody.  If regular people try it they get arrested for counterfeiting. 

What’s it called when the Fed does it?  Oh, yes, it’s called monetary policy.

And if he stumbles across this quote: 

If a domestic money consists of a commodity, a pure gold standard or cowrie bead standard, the principles of monetary policy are very simple. There aren’t any. The commodity money takes care of itself. — Milton Friedman

He might then wonder about the need for a central bank at all.

***

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

 

The Exponential vs. the State

Futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil wrote an essay in 2001, The Law of Accelerating Returns, that describes an exponential path to what for many is an unimaginable future.  

How certain is the exponential he describes? “We would have to repeal capitalism and every visage of economic competition to stop this progression,” he says.  

In today’s world of collapsing currencies and anticapitalist agendas that repeal is well underway.  Will the exponential be allowed to benefit mankind or will we regress to stagnation and slavery under globalist rule?

The exponential explained

According to Kurzweil,

Exponential growth is a feature of any evolutionary process, of which technology is a primary example. One can examine the data in different ways, on different time scales, and for a wide variety of technologies ranging from electronic to biological, and the acceleration of progress and growth applies. Indeed, we find not just simple exponential growth, but “double” exponential growth, meaning that the rate of exponential growth is itself growing exponentially.

Moore’s Law — the exponential shrinking of transistor sizes on an integrated circuit — is thought to be nearly synonymous with this observation but in fact it is only one example of what Kurzweil calls “a rich model of technological processes.” This has been ongoing “since the advent of evolution on Earth.”  

His analysis shows that although “exponential trends did exist a thousand years ago, they were at that very early stage where an exponential trend is so flat that it looks like no trend at all.” 

Humans live in a linear world, he reminds us, and often believe progress will continue at the present rate.  This is not surprising since any sufficiently short period on an exponential scale will be experienced as linear.  “Even sophisticated commentators, when considering the future, extrapolate the current pace of change over the next 10 years or 100 years to determine their expectations.”

The full impact of exponential growth can be seen in the tale of the inventor of chess and his patron, the emperor of China. 

In response to the emperor’s offer of a reward for his new beloved game, the inventor asked for a single grain of rice on the first square, two on the second square, four on the third, and so on. The Emperor quickly granted this seemingly benign and humble request.

One version of the story has the emperor going bankrupt as the 63 doublings ultimately totaled 18 million trillion grains of rice. At ten grains of rice per square inch, this requires rice fields covering twice the surface area of the Earth, oceans included. Another version of the story has the inventor losing his head.

Where does exponential growth take us?

It will appear to explode into infinity, at least from the limited and linear perspective of contemporary humans. The progress will ultimately become so fast that it will rupture our ability to follow it. It will literally get out of our control.  The illusion that we have our hand “on the plug,” will be dispelled. [My emphasis]

He calls the point of explosion the Singularity.  

It represents the nearly vertical phase of exponential growth where the rate of growth is so extreme that technology appears to be growing at infinite speed. Of course, from a mathematical perspective, there is no discontinuity, no rupture, and the growth rates remain finite, albeit extraordinarily large. But from our currently limited perspective, this imminent event appears to be an acute and abrupt break in the continuity of progress. 

However, I emphasize the word “currently,” because one of the salient implications of the Singularity will be a change in the nature of our ability to understand. In other words, we will become vastly smarter as we merge with our technology.   [My emphasis]

How imminent is the Singularity?  In his magnum opus The Singularity is Near Kurzweil sets the year 2045 for its arrival.  “The nonbiological intelligence created in that year will be one billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today. . . .  Despite the clear predominance of nonbiological intelligence by the mid-2040s, ours will still be a human civilization. We will transcend biology, but not our humanity.”

Advancements in nanotechnology will bring tools to “rebuild the physical world—our bodies and brains included—molecular fragment by molecular fragment, potentially atom by atom.”

By creating universal abundance nanotech will diminish the reasons for “breaking the peace.”

Kurzweil's batting average

For those wishing to assign Kurzweil the status of crackpot, check out his PDF, "How My Predictions Are Faring,” which he published in 2010.  

Of the 147 predictions, Kurzweil claimed that 115 were "entirely correct", 12 were "essentially correct", 17 were "partially correct", and only 3 were "wrong". Combining the "entirely" and "essentially" correct, Kurzweil's claimed accuracy rate comes to 86%.  (Wikipedia) 

Read it and judge for yourself. There are good reasons why he’s received 20 honorary doctorates.  He became a successful entrepeneur by applying his knowledge of exponential trends.

The implosion of the current world order

 

Students of revisionist history and free-market economics understand what’s at stake in today’s world.  The actions of governments in accordance with Event 201, which inflicted a globally totalitarian response to a virus; the stated aims of the WEF where by 2030 what’s left of humanity will become happy slaves of an elite; the extinction of fiat monetary systems brought to ruin by central bank counterfeiting; governments defaulting on their debt and unable to pay its employees — all of this and more will create a world of opportunity perhaps never before seen. 

Freedom and free markets will emerge by default if not by intention.  

Market-chosen money (or monies) will help rescue the world economy.  

With the need for defense of private property the market will provide solutions in accordance with treatises such as Hoppe’s The Private Production of Defense and others.

I need to mention that these are my views, not Ray Kurzweil's.

Conclusion

The future will not be Man versus government Terminators, but rather technologically enhanced humans prospering together.

The State, which will still exist only if we fail ourselves, will be relegated to the dark chambers of history.

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

 

Stand firm against the gaslighting liberal world order

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

— Thomas Jefferson

Recently one of Joe Biden’s lieutenants, Brian Deese, told an interviewer if high gas prices are needed to attain the liberal world order we need to stand firm.

What do they mean by “liberal world order”?  They’ve given us hints — have you noticed?

Unlike other despotic regimes, the West’s dissent enforcers are usually employed outside government directly, at least for now.  Make private forces do the dirty work of gagging troublemakers with threats, gaslighting, harassment, deplatforming, fining or firing.  Gives the impression of “the people” outraged rather than a cold-blooded bureaucrat.  But when necessary the regime swings into action with election treachery, sustained with a mockery of the rule of law.  And for a Hollywood touch it might send a twentyfold SWAT team to a recalcitrant’s home and haul her in cuffed.  Or for low comedy send a plump covid cop to chase a runner off a closed beach.

The liberal world order means no one should even think about dissent.  It means nothing less than the permanent suppression of all challengers to the approved narrative, perhaps achieved with the Final Solution (extermination of all undesirables), precedent for which is part of American history.  

The Covid War

We’ve seen the early stages of this liberal world order in the Covid campaign.  Normally, in battle, you hate the enemy and make no pretensions about it.  Not so with the Covid War.  The purpose was to kill as many of us as possible while feigning concern for our welfare.  Evidence: The astronomical number of adverse events on VAERS that are being ignored.  (For more evidence peruse the videos on my BitChute channel.)  Given that the enemy (human sheep) doesn’t see them as attackers, it worked wonderfully.  And as we’ve seen it’s still ongoing.  

How could our American leaders act this way?  And how could so many others be self-righteously obedient?

The spirit of free men has always been distrustful of authority, at minimum.  What happened, guys?  You consider yourself free but roll over to anyone anointed with the title of expert while standing in front of an American flag?  The information is out there, Google can’t hide everything, all it takes is some effort on your part.  Get off social media and do some real research. 

Most of us have heard about doctors promoting early treatment of Covid.  Are they charlatans or conscientious medical professionals?  You’re aware of what the CDC, FDA, Fauci, social media, Wikipedia, and the rest of the gang think of them.  I have no medical training, but I can read and make judgments.  So can you.

They were saving lives with HCQ and ivermectin and keeping people out of hospitals.  Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Dr. Brian Tyson, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Simone Gold and others tried to convince authorities of the necessity of early treatment and the availability of drugs that were inexpensive, safe and efficacious. 

For instance, Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale, testifying before the Senate Hearing on Outpatient Treatment on November 19, 2020 , told the panel:

So what did I find when I investigated hydroxychloroquine in early use among outpatients?  The first thing is that this drug is extremely safe — exceedingly safe.  We know this from common sense.  This is a medication that has been used for sixty-five years by hundreds of millions of people, in tens of billions of doses worldwide, prescribed without routine electrocardiogram screening. It’s given to adults and children, pregnant women, nursing mothers.  Such a drug must be safe, and it must be safe in the initial viral replication phase of this illness, which is in fact in outpatients initially similar to a cold or flu.  

In spite of its safety, surprisingly, in July the FDA posted a warning against outpatient hydroxychloroquine use on its website.  And they did this while at the same time the FDA had no systematic evidence of adverse events in outpatients, and the website itself says it justifies the warning based on evidence that it had on hospital patients, which [as] I said before is invalid [because hospital patients are not outpatients].

There are now seven studies [involving thousands of test subjects around the world] of early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk outpatients.  And every one of these studies has found significant benefit. . . . All of these studies showed a 50 percent or greater reduction in risk of hospitalization or death. . . . .

This body of evidence for hydroxychloroquine dramatically outweighs the risk-benefit ratio for Remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies, and for the difficult-to-use Bebtelovimab [?]  that FDA has approved for Emergency Use Authorization 

Do you think a Yale professor of epidemiology is a paid liar or the studies he cites are all flawed or bogus?  If so, what’s in it for him besides the axing of his reputation?  Money?  Who’s writing the checks?  Certainly not Big Pharma.  Remdesivir (brand name Veklury) is the child of Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical firm.  And what do you know, NBCNews, no less, had this to say about remdesivir on November 19, 2020, ironically the same day Risch and others were testifying in DC:

The antiviral remdesivir should not be used as treatment for hospitalized Covid-19 patients, the World Health Organization said Thursday, only a month after the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug to treat patients over age 12 who are hospitalized with Covid-19.

Earlier this year (2022) I tested positive for Covid and spent a day in the hospital but for other reasons.  They wanted to hit me with remdesivir, but I said no. 

Later, I saw a printed summary of my treatments with the word “disinformation” as the reason for declining remdesivir.

******

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.