It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The coronavirus will be Leviathan's enabler

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 03:05 PM
national review article
Full article as titled

I owe some people here an apology .

The way I saw things was naive , I'm not well educated enough in American politics and my comments were misinformed .

Being British I come from a different country , and a different school of thought altogether. It's easy to forget that America, though speaking the same language is a foreign country , with foreign problems and ways of seeing things that I don't understand properly .

So I am sorry that I thought I knew enough to make a point of view clear and I was called on it and I should have listened more carefully to the wise people here that hail from the land of the free .

Or the not so free enduring a lockdown which they don't like and which is evaporating trust even further in their politicians, if that be possible .

And they're not wrong to be suspicious and to outright oppose the net removal of their liberty and rights which they hold so dear .

Even if my view remains that social distance and business and movement restrictions are necessary elements of staving off a pandemic virus , I was wrong to question hard why my compadres the patriots in the states disagreed with the measures so comprehensively and as I said it was because I didn't understand why.

So I want to share with the membership of which we British can only remain on the fringe , part of this article from the national review magazine , which provides intelligence briefings and overviews of current events which helped give depth to what I'd been hearing and not perceiving .

It's by Kevin Williamson on April 16 th.

The evolution of Leviathan is easiest to follow in financial terms, because those are quantifiable and published. But the growth of state power — here at home and abroad — is more complex than that, and more invasive — and it is in very many cases popular, even when it is nakedly self-interested.


The epidemic shows the immediate need for such mandates in practically all government purchases and for other forms of trade protectionism. In the most recent Gallup poll, nearly 80 percent of respondents endorsed anti-outsourcing measures. Elizabeth Warren, who has long advocated laws mandating higher wages, says the epidemic shows the need for such laws, which generally enjoy broad support. The same goes for other tangential issues opportunistically attached to the epidemic response.

There is an emotional payoff to crisis solidarity — and a big political payoff, too, which is why Donald Trump has taken to calling himself a “wartime president,” why Emmanuel Macron has declared “We are at war!” while Queen Elizabeth II does the same. Even Angela Merkel is invoking that unpleasantness from 1939 to 1945: “Since the Second World War, there has been no challenge to our nation that has demanded such a degree of common and united action,” she said. So the epidemic is, from that point of view, a lot like World War II, except the Germans are on our side. Perhaps most important from the politicians’ point of view, the “wartime” rallying effect seems to be in evidence: Merkel’s numbers are up and, as of this writing, so are Trump’s.

A critical difference is that the economic challenge of World War II was mobilizing resources and maximizing output for the war effort. The challenge in our time is trying to minimize the damage that will be done by forcibly idling businesses, industries, and much of the nation in the service of social isolation, the hygienic deep freeze in which the epidemic, it is hoped, will die down. And so the predictable opportunism of the political caste is, in a sense, more nefarious: Businesses and individuals find themselves in the position of needing aid not because of normal organic economic changes or unwise investments (I guess the Fortune 500 shouldn’t have spent all that money on avocado toast) but because they are (to varying degrees voluntarily) being co-opted to serve a different social end — an important one. Forcing people into the position of needing assistance and then conditioning that assistance in self-serving political ways is corrupt, and it should be understood as corruption.

For example: There might have been some pretty good “loose lips sink ships” reasons to restrict the communications of certain businesses receiving military contracts during the war against Germany and Japan (oh, all right: You, too, Italy, you, too!), but there is not much good reason for restricting the First Amendment rights of U.S. business owners and executives during this epidemic. Nonetheless, Washington is doing precisely that, for example by forbidding recipients of federal business aid to speak against unionization in their firms. Aid is normally conditional, and there is not anything wrong with that where the conditions serve some legitimate purpose related to the intended use of the aid. This is not that. This is rank political opportunism and the diminution of basic political rights. Progressi

It should resonate with those from the home of the brave . And I can say , yes I now understand .
I hope I'd be forgiven for being an ass with a blindfold on. It was naive not to hear so many saying the same things. The only fact I have in my defense is what led to my confusion , and that is that all these
extra powers in the UK are temporary , we were reassured that by the fact the new laws state that on being unrcessary the acts will lapse , and that certain criteria will cause them to automatically become revoked . The redundancy of lockdown law was thus unproblematic in my mind , in my country in my world and hence in my worldview . It was wrong of me to assume , and to not stop and consider my confusion at many otherwise reliably rational and wise contributors .

I had a good old chuckle at iamtats thread about Iran's new coronavirus detector device which was stated could remotely detect coronavirus on surfaces and dissidents with an accuracy of 80+%
. That was more like a normal day , and even though it's slightly unfair to laugh at those poor Iranians under that system , it serves to juxtapose where we've had common understandings too.
So , sorry , and please continue to fight the fights that you guys feel you need to fight . It's your country and your lives after all and you do know best how to see to your own situations.
edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: Dpellonhs

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 03:22 PM
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Seems that Every Person on the Face of this Earth Today that has Died in Recent Weeks had been Labeled Death by Covid-19 . The " Grand Lie " is not just Believable Anymore .............(

edit on 16-4-2020 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 03:25 PM

There are dozens of other abusive interventions of that sort written into aid packages and other coronavirus emergency measures. The temptation to maintain these abuses even after the coronavirus emergency has passed will be very powerful. And, in many cases, such proposals will be popular, though there already are pockets of resistance to the heavy-handedness of the response (e.g., police arresting a man for playing T-ball with his daughter in an otherwise empty park, prohibiting the sale of vegetable seeds at stores that are open for selling “essential” goods, prohibiting “drive-in” Easter services and other innovations in social-distancing worship, etc.), most prominently from conservative religious communities and in rural areas. But in the main, these measures have support and are widely defended in the press on “wartime” grounds. The natural inclinations of the American people are considerably more authoritarian than is the American Constitution, which is one of the things that make it so handy to have a constitution that is written down in English words and sentences that are generally understood to be binding on the government.

There are measures appropriate to wartime (this is not a war) and to other national emergencies that are not appropriate to ordinary times. That is one of the reasons why populist politicians, including Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, always strive so hard to convince us that we are in the midst of an emergency, that every scraped knee calls for the moral equivalent of war. Everyone who follows public policy can think of an “emergency” measure that proved eternal: Those of you dinosaurs with landline telephones are still paying part of a small tax instituted to help offset the costs of the Spanish–American War of 1898.

The United States has changed since the end of World War I, when efforts to retain Woodrow Wilson’s authoritarian “war socialism” were swept away in Warren G. Harding’s “return to normalcy.” Returning to normalcy after the coronavirus epidemic is going to take a concerted and programmatic effort — it is going to be a political project of some consequence.

And it will be resisted.

In 1930, the federal government was spending less (in GDP terms) in total than today it spends on Social Security alone — and it was a good deal less presumptuous. Today, the federal government is faced with a genuine emergency. Eventually, it will be the emergency, unless we see to it that it isn't.

edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 03:26 PM
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

I appreciate this thread.


posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 03:43 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Thanks and stick to your guns

edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: DoctorBluechip


I dont know if its an American thing, a personal thing, or a human thing.. But if you ask me to do something nicely, I probably wont hesitate (within reason).

The moment that becomes an order to comply, even just limited to social consequences.. I cant help but resist. Once the government itself becomes involved, well, my hackles shoot straight up and I have to keep myself from snarling

I still wouldnt have been a fan, but had the government done something as simple as stating "could you please stay home? We will give these stimulus checks to those who choose to do so." Well, thats a much different situation. Like I said, still wouldnt think its necessarily the path to go down, but there ya go.

My biggest concern is very similar to that linked article, and its a longstanding concern:

Economic health (I dont view this as "just money") and the centralization and consolidation of corporate power & influence. With the latter, I am also concerned with regards to how that impacts everything from influencing the political sphere to global organizations (IMF, WHO, UN) to foreign adversarial influence (like the CCP). The CCP, specifically, have been absolutely pouring money into other nations, and into quite concerning areas.

Even there, I dont know if something like the CCP would be the driving factor itself, or another "pawn" in a much larger plan. Most dont seem to want to look into it, either way.

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

What I see as being a large problem is that there's been regular bailouts , not just the Corona stimulus money ,adding to government deficits and then countries have to live with austerity so they can pay the debts off.

Knowing a realistically factual economist or two I know that these bailouts are electronically created money , it didn't exist in the first place , but still now it has to be paid back , or that will be the case after the event.
They'll ( the central banks ) destroy it again , because it never existed in the first place , but keep the interest as profit .

All banks can and do make loans of invented , electronically created money , on the premise that profit is made from the interest.
This gives banks huge powers to decide the direction of society and business, leading those who know about the way it works to recommend instead a system of 'positive' money , where all money is actually of tangible or real value. Most of the public have no idea of the way it really works.
It could be said , in favour of it that at least we re secure with financial oversight with do much power , but who is most secure are those with most to lose if 'real world' conditions applied .And they're not necessarily worthy of the payoff .

Maybe, where you're questioning about CCP and other foreign investment in us business , the motivation rests in the relative safety of their capital
put in environments that are going to be bailed out again and again , to maintain economic security for the countries which get bailed out if there's a problem. Their business is then secure from it's piggybacking on national needs for economic security . And that could be why you see the foreign firms come in so willingly . Domestic governments don't mind these arrangememts initially because they're bringing jobs and investment. But helping foreign companies continue to exist in times of crises becomes an unforeseen and unwanted or needed burden after that.

edit on 16-4-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 05:20 PM
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Those are definitely some fair points, and would be relatively standard business deals. They arent necessarily the ones I am concerned about though.

Its the things like pouring money into a place like Harvard, and then hearing about folks getting in hot water for their shenanigans with China.

Or things like Clinton/Loral.

Or ownership in the food supply chain.

Or influence of major news networks.

Not just the US either, but everywhere from Australia to "ghost cities" in Africa.

If we look at things like WHO funding, the US is (or was) the largest single contributor, but if we consider the possibility of, say, the Gates Foundation working with the CCP.. (And perhaps a certain lab in Wuhan) A different possibility emerges. One that might explain a lot of questionable things that have happened with this virus specifically.

Basically, years ago.. someone told me: "watch your schools, land, and politicians." At the time, platforms like facebook & google werent around, but I suspect they would have been included too.

I have watched, and I have not liked what I have seen. Its expansive enough that its difficult to relay it, and even if its all super duper benign.. Should the CCP deign to flex their influence in these regards (not just in the US, mind you, but the UK, Australia, Africa), people are gonna find out real quick that that was all probably a bad idea.

Frankly, I think thats what has been going on for years now. Sowing social discord in the west through ownership (see: influence) of social platforms, tech companies, politicians, schools, electronic devices, cell service (Huawai), etc.

Like I said though.. Are they acting of their own volition, or as an agent? Either way, a lot of the steps to take make it a bit of a moot point. Im certainly not talking about war, not even economic sanctions.

I think they are concepts that everyone can get behind; if its a critical industry, widely used & relied upon tech/websites, etc. We can bring those into the influence and control of our own nations. It wouldnt necessarily prevent domestic sources, but.. baby steps I suppose. Ive got my own ideas for that, but its already a very large subject. And much of it has gone unnoticed because of the long term time frames and lack of publicity (understandably). The sheer expanse of it doesnt help either, but if people look into it, they probably arent going to like what they find.

posted on Apr, 16 2020 @ 05:22 PM
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

*narrows eyes*

Not sure if you're truly being contrite. . . . .

*Backs out of thread slowly. . . . *

posted on Apr, 17 2020 @ 01:11 AM
a reply to: Serdgiam
I see what you mean , although as you say it's a grey area as to why that's going on , I'll ask about it.
It's something that trump was complaining about and intended to change , saying that china had been exploiting America. The world has certainly changed since nce he came on the scene , how much how do about it I don't know.
On the surface some of that may have to do with china being such a huge countrywith so many people , and a single select entity in charge of its policies and the world being shrunken by the fact that travel is so easy and the purposeful attempts to relax borders and trade obstacles over years gone by. There's bound to be something behind what you've - pouring money in and not just by regular industries, but those were assumptions. The areas you've identified make it look like power plays and probably there specific intent . Interesting stuff

and also

new topics

top topics


log in