Category Archives: Uncategorized


“For dramatic effect only, John represents the heavens and the earth as fleeing the scene, leaving only God’s glorious throne to dominate the picture of judgment day: “the great white throne stands alone, with nothing to challenge, to qualify, or even to mediate its sole supremacy” (Caird 258). This is an image of God’s terrifying majesty, an image that ultimately arises from Adam and Eve’s attempt to hide themselves from their offended God in Eden (Ge 3:8).


According to Scripture, the physical universe will be physically transformed through fiery cleansing to make way for the consummate new heavens and new earth (2Pe 3:10–12; cp. Ps 102:25–27; Isa 51:6; Mt 5:18; 24:35).

John’s attention here is not on the consummate new heavens and new earth brought about through his renovating power. Rather he is highlighting the judgment that befalls the unrighteous. We almost have to strain to recognize believers at this judgment, partly because the passage has such a condemnatory cast. This judgment is being portrayed as so terrifying that the universe seeks to hide from God’s wrath.”

People don’t care for the idea that Justice is coming.

He’s coming anyways.

Postmillennial Worldview

PMT 2015-081 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Revelation 20 we have the one section of Revelation that extends beyond the near-time indicators. John speaks of the “thousand years” in which Christ reigns with his martyred saints (Rev 20:4–7). In 20:11 we read of the Great White Throne of God. John informs us that “the heaven and earth fled away” at the setting of the judgment scene.

But what does the fleeing away of the heaven and earth mean? This is the question I will answer in this blog article.

In Rev 20:11 John adds a description regarding the enthroned one. He states that he is the one “from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.” According to Scripture, the physical universe will be physically transformed through fiery cleansing to make way for the consummate new heavens and new earth (2Pe 3:10–12; cp…

View original post 784 more words

Cheap, not Free, Health Care

Because Christians are to work in the real world.

Not in the world of let-pretend eternal government subsidies.

Subsidies that always crash and burn, harming (if not destroying) those who were dependent on them.

Also: the State is not a Saviour. It is not to pretend to be Jesus Christ, with it’s theft and lies and murder.

Such fraud is disgusting.

It should return to it’s proper station: punishing criminals, and adjudicating some (not all) disputes between men.

Article from below.

Why Progressives Will Never Accept Market-Based Medical Care

William L. Anderson

A recent article on this page highlighted a stunning situation in which a surgery clinic in Oklahoma City was able to offer outpatient procedures at less than one-tenth of what local hospitals were charging to third-party payment systems such as insurance companies and Medicare. This was a significant article in many ways, in that it presented what truly is a shocking picture of what really happens in the medical care systems in this country.

At the same time, I was not surprised that Dr. G. Keith Smith’s clinic was able both to offer high-quality services at prices that are within the reach of most Americans and do it in an economical and convenient manner. After all, a free market economy has done the same with nearly all other privately offered goods and services for centuries and medical care should be no exception.

First, and most important, medical care is a scarce good, which means that it is subject to all of the immutable laws of economics. Second, when entrepreneurs are permitted the opportunities to improve goods and services in a free market setting, the results are predictable: better and less costly goods and services become the norm.

The facts that Dr. Smith presented seem to be indisputable. One can pull up the material online and see the prices, and it seems that everything else there is in order. Furthermore, they have pulled off what economists like Paul Krugman have claimed was impossible: lowering real medical care costs over time. To quote Krugman:

Why do health care costs keep on rising? It’s not because doctors and hospitals are greedy; it’s because of medical progress. More and more conditions that once lay beyond doctors’ reach can now be treated, adding years to the lives of patients and greatly increasing the quality of those years—but at ever greater expense. A triple coronary bypass does a lot more for you than a nice bedside manner, but it costs a lot more, too.

What this Oklahoma City clinic has done should be catching on everywhere and it should be celebrated in our body politic. Instead, as Dr. Smith points out, the medical establishment has done everything possible to shut it down and, if those in charge of other clinics and hospitals had their way, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma would meet the same fate as Tom Smith’s “Incredible Bread Machine.”

Some of the rejection certainly falls into the “capture theory” category of regulatory economics. Other medical entities don’t like the competition and they use the apparatus of government to hamstring competing firms—all while using the “we’re protecting the consumer” rhetoric, which is textbook theory. Likewise, we also can see the “Baptists and bootleggers” theory of regulation at work. (Both Baptists and bootleggers want the liquor stores closed, but for very different reasons. The Baptists provide the high-sounding, “public interest” rhetoric, while the bootleggers don’t want the competition from legal entities.)

No matter what theory we use to describe the opposition to free market medical care, we easily can characterize it by the following statement: medical care should not be inexpensive; it should be free. Anything less than “free” is morally and politically unacceptable. Whether one reads statements by Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or anyone else in the current pantheon of American progressivism, “free” medical care is at the heart of all their demands.

I point out that no one—not even Krugman—believes that medical care is a “free” or nonscarce service. To state otherwise would be claiming that every single factor of production that goes into the development and delivery of medical care also would have to be nonscarce, from labor to every single component of every medical device used. Even people that claim that medical care is ”different” from other goods and services and does not adhere to standard laws of economics are not going to claim that every input that goes into medical care also should be free.

Since progressives believe that “free” medical care actually is not free in the economic sense, we are left with their central doctrine: all medical care should be administered free of charge to recipients and all payments that go to providers of medical care and producers of goods used in medical services should come from sources other than the direct recipients of medical services. This is not so much an economic statement as it is a religious one. If there is one central religious belief that all progressives share it is the belief that no one who receives medical services should have to pay directly for them. The amount of the fee is irrelevant; anything more than zero is prima facie immoral.

This doctrine is so central to American progressive beliefs that progressives will go to extraordinary lengths to defend any political regime that offers free medical care. All one needs to do is to find progressive support for every single Communist regime from the twentieth century—and that includes the madly genocidal regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia in the mid-1970s—because they have free healthcare.

Even after the collapse of most Communist regimes thirty years ago, the lone holdouts like Cuba and North Korea have their amen corners. Nikole Hannah-Jones, before she came to the New York Times, wrote this for readers of her former employer, the Portland Oregonian, after a visit to Cuba in 2008:

While there, I found a Cuba you may not know. A Cuba with a 99.8 percent literacy rate, the lowest HIV infection rate in the Western Hemisphere, free college and health care.

She continues:

Cuba’s universal health care system is seen by many as a world model. Neighborhood clinics and municipal hospitals provide free treatment, including laser vision correction and cosmetic surgery to fix deformities. HIV and AIDS drugs cost nothing. Most clinics make do with outdated equipment and a shortage of supplies. Yet the country has a higher ratio of doctors to patients than the U.S., and Cubans live longer than we do.

I recall reading the same worshipful language directed at Mao’s regime in China even during the disastrous Cultural Revolution and praise directed to the former USSR and its Eastern European satellites for their alleged “free” medical care for all. No matter how violent, how murderous, and how genocidal a political regime might be, if it offers “free” and universal medical care then nothing else matters. “Free” and universal medical care legitimizes all other excesses. The left-leaning Guardian provides a recent example of this principle.

Given that progressives are willing to excuse political mass murder if the regime in question claims to offer “free” medical care to everyone, then they hardly will be convinced that a medical model like that of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (SCO) is morally legitimate even when it provides quality services at a fraction of the cost of medical care under third-party payments. For example, even after acknowledging the success of the SCO, a self-described “libertarian” recently challenged its legitimacy, employing Kenneth Arrow’s famous 1963 paper in American Economic Review that claimed medical care was “different” than other goods and services and needed to be removed from the market system.

For all of the praise heaped upon the paper, and for all of its positive acceptance by the elites of academic economics, the Arrow paper is a poster child for the informal fallacy of “begging the question.” Arrow begins with a conclusion and then “proves” his point—without proving anything at all. Likewise, progressives begin with the declaration that the only morally legitimate system of medical care is one in which no recipient of medical services pays directly, so even if the SCO were able to bring their prices down to a nickel per procedure, progressives still would object.

Briefly put, the Arrow theme is that because there is much uncertainty in the field of medical care, markets in that field cannot be competitive, which means that by definition they are not optimal. He writes: “[W]hen the market fails to reach an optimal state, society will, to some extent at least, recognize the gap and nonmarket social institutions will rise attempting to bridge it.” There is much to criticize here and not enough space to do it, but suffice it to say that Arrow’s analysis, as faulty as it may be, provides the fig leaf for economists like Krugman to make his antimarket claims:

There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

The fact that the SCO can profitably perform surgeries at less than a tenth of what nearby hospitals would charge insurers is irrelevant to economists like Krugman, who forcefully dismiss such information on its face. Not only clinics like the SCO but also outfits like Epiphany Health Direct Primary Care in North Port, Florida, are able to provide quality healthcare at affordable prices, but mainstream economists simply can deny their existence—and get away with it. In fact, there are more than fourteen hundred such cash-only practices across the country, giving lie to Krugman’s claim that free markets make healthcare more expensive and less available. (Remember, in Krugman’s world, only the wealthy have access to medical care in a free market system. That most patients taking part in the medical version of free markets are not wealthy people does not change Krugman’s narrative.)

In his 1963 paper, Arrow spoke for progressives when he conducted a flawed analysis meant to reach conclusions “proving” that the free market and healthcare were incompatible. He wrote: “It is the general consensus, clearly, that the laissez-faire solution for medicine is intolerable.” However, there is plenty of evidence today that laissez-faire medical care is not intolerable and that most medical procedures performed in a free market setting are well within the financial means of most people in this country.

Medical care that truly is affordable certainly is not given a fair and honest hearing in this country. For politicians, the media, such a situation is anathema. They would rather see a contrived, high-cost system that wastes trillions of dollars in misallocated resources but is subsidized on the back end to give the appearance of being “affordable” and, more important, “equitable.” High-cost “free” medical care is morally superior to low-cost free market medical care, because, well, because it is.

When such ground rules for debate exist, it is hard to be able to make a public argument. Economists like Krugman, who are able to martial media resources to shout down opposing arguments, will appear to carry the day, at least where the supposed debate is concerned, as will his allies in academe and in Congress and the legislatures.

But economics is not based upon rhetoric but rather the real world of resources, production, and consumption. Just because Paul Krugman claims that by definition free market medical clinics cannot exist does not mean that thousands of people are not receiving the kind of care that Krugman, Arrow, and most of the economics profession claim to be impossible. Free market care does exist, and it provides, frankly, a moral choice against the lies the established elites are telling us. Author:

Contact William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.


Police departments love to show off their dogs—at parades or on Twitter, visiting classrooms or posing with a Girl Scout troop. Some K-9s even have their own adorable Instagram accounts.

But police dogs are weapons. They bite and maim. They attack bystanders, police officers, and people suspected of petty crimes. And if you are unfortunate enough to get bitten by a police dog, good luck holding anyone accountable.

the marshall project: Mauled

That is what gets my attention: accountability.

“All the power. None of the responsibility.”

Dogs have served as instruments of violence in incidents dating back to the days of slavery, and as recently as the Black Lives Matter protests. In a year-long investigation, we talked to the people who train the dogs, the police officers who use them, and the victims who have been mauled by them. We watched dozens of videos of dog bites, from police body cameras and bystanders’ cell phones. We learned a lot about the dogs, which have names like Drogo, Missile, Vader, Storm and Rambo.

the marshall project: Mauled

Before a covenantal lawsuit can be made, evidence must be gathered.

It’s a good idea even for lesser courts, like the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion.

Human beings – even dark-skinned ones – matter more than dogs do.

Way more.

Politics over Science Regarding COVID

The following is from Jordan Schachtel of The Dossier

You can get the goods direct to your mailbox by subscribing to him.

From: Politics over science: Biden Admin signals intent to force FDA approval of COVID vaccines
Full approval opens a bigger mandate arsenal to feds.

—<Quote begins>—

The Biden Administration has signaled its next move as part of the White House’s full court press to pressure Americans into taking COVID-19 vaccines.

It seems the White House intends to strongarm the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into fully approving COVID vaccines, while completely dismissing evolving safety and efficacy concerns in the process.

It began during a CNN town hall this week, when President Biden appeared to let it slip (in difficult to comprehend language) that he was pushing for full FDA approval before the end of the year.


Fully authorizing the COVID vaccines will allow for the government to hop over legal and regulatory hurdles that come from their current status under emergency use authorization. The Biden Administration seems to believe full approval will act as a mandate for further draconian, top down policies from the federal government, the likes of which may include vaccine passports and compulsory vaccination for much of public and private industry.

In an article earlier this week, state-corporate press organ NBC News attempted to tee up the case for vaccine mandates. Several Obama and Biden “health” officials went on the record for the piece to make it clear they wanted to make life as difficult as possible for “unvaccinated” Americans.


“The official regulatory sign off would remove a significant legal and public relations barrier for businesses and government agencies that want to require vaccinations for their employees and customers, former health officials from the Biden and the Obama administrations said,” the NBC article states.

Andy Slavitt, a former Biden Administration official who infamously advertised a mask that he claimed could “deactivate” the coronavirus, told NBC News:

“I think once the vaccines go through full FDA approval, everything should be on the table, and I think that everything will be on the table at the level of municipalities, states, employers, venues, government agencies.”

The FDA is not in fact an independent regulatory agency. It is simply another executive branch agency that falls under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Human Services. While the FDA is tasked with ensuring the safety of drugs that have prospects for the open market, the reality remains that politicians and pharmaceutical companies regularly steer and manipulate the FDA as they please. 

The revolving door between Big Pharma and the Government Health is very much on display at the FDA today. Patrizia Cavazzoni, the FDA’s new top drug regulator, worked for two decades in Big Pharma (including a stint at Pfizer) before entering her government role in 2019. In fact, it is the norm, not an aberration, for Big Pharma executives to have a resume stuffed with Big Pharma consulting and employment gigs. Recent FDA chiefs, such as Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb and Obama FDA chief Robert Califf, have resumes stuffed with examples of the constant revolving door between lobbying, government, and pharmaceutical companies.

The notion that mRNA vaccines have proven, *long term* safety and efficacy standards for the masses is simply not possible to prove at this time. Real world data (as opposed to Big Pharma studies) out of Israel, Malta, the UK, and elsewhere show that the vaccines have not exactly demonstrated much of an ability to prevent infection, contrary to the early claims made by pharmaceutical companies and Government Health institutions. 


The bottom line: The White House is seeking to use the reputation of the FDA to force more Americans to take COVID vaccines, and they’ve made it clear that this is entirely about politics, and not science. The government agency that gave us the disaster that is the food pyramid is not an independent body, nor is it any kind of authority on science and health. The FDA is just another bureaucracy, with the primary interested parties being the White House and Big Pharma.

—<Quote ends>—

They make the profits, and you take the risks.

They get the power. You get to Obey For Your Own Good – regardless of the fact that it’s your body, and your health, and your life, which should be under YOUR control.

Not theirs.

Not the President’s.

Not Big Pharma, either.

P.S: Can you hear the complete silence of the Woke and the Left on this issue?

It’s almost as quiet as when Stalin decided to eliminate a nice big chunk of the peasantry and the working class.

“For their own safety, and their own benefit.”

Two LewRockwell Articles on COVID

Dr. Andrew Kaufman: Why the Virus Has Never Been Proven To Exist, Why the “Pandemic” Is a Psychological Operation and More

By Ginny Garner

I disagree with the claim that the COVID mania is strictly a psychological operation. COVID really does have a measurable impact on people 75 years and older (and a smaller but real impact on people between 50 and 75). And there is an actual impact on people who are overweight/obese.

Instead, I would argue that the great destructiveness of COVID is almost completely due to the lockdowns and the restrictions and the 24-by-7 pumped-up fear, pushed relentlessly by the media.

This intensely evil top-down media campaign placed enormous costs on the young, the working class and psychologically damaged (or flat-out crushed) the mentally weakest people in society.

Why? So the most powerful people could get even MORE power over the rest of us.

(To the cheers of the Progressives and the Marxists, as usual.)

And – strictly confidential – to both hurt Trump’s re-election chances, and punish the Inferiors for challenging the Right Sort with both Trump and Brexit.

(No, I can’t prove it. Instead, I merely ask, “Who benefits?”

To ask the question is to answer it.)

COVID is not a complete fraud… but I sympathize with those who believe so. They are wrong, but I know where they are coming from.

The disease was completely manageable with traditional, pre-2005 public health procedures. You know, public health direction that does not smash the lives of millions and millions, over a kind of flu that kills 10 times the usual number of elderly people over 75.

Chinese Media Coverage, Biowarfare, and My Covid EBook

By Ron Unz
The Unz Review

I would argue that Ron Unz has the real goods on what is going on: a failed , unprovoked, and deeply despicable biowar attack against China and Iran by certain elements of the United States government.

It is clear that COVID is an artificially tweaked disease: a topic the managed media banned discussion on while Trump was President, but promptly pushed within weeks of his leaving office. Out Betters just want to cloud the evidence with red herrings – something they will probably be successful at, sadly.

Read Ron’s material, and see if it makes sense to you. I think the allegation is true, but I could be wrong here.

What IS true without a doubt, is that COVID was hyped to the skies to meet the political goals of Our Betters – including the pushing of a government-mandated vaccine.

Information – even information backed by WHO – that pointed against the Narrative was (and IS) shut down and suppressed.

Any discussion about curing or treating the disease – which would take away from the frantic monomania push for pushing untested vaccines into billions of people – was (and IS) suppressed.

All behaviour by governments that works against the Narrative – say, Texas and Florida, when they removed all restrictions in their states – is downplayed and ignored. Even when it promptly leads to falling rates of death and cases/infections.

“Fighting the disease is not the point. Pushing for more controls on the Inferiors IS the point!”

Finally, any and all demonstrations against mandated vaccinations, lockdowns, is either downplayed or ignored. Whether in Europe or in the US. While weak and insipid variants – which is what flus and infectious diseases naturally tend to become, after a time – are pushed to the skies as DANGER DANGER DANGER.

Our Betters think there will be no repercussions from such massive fraud and malice.

I have confidence that Our Betters are wrong.

The slow descent of “Science!” As in “Trust the Science!”

Uncommon Decent pointed to an interesting article on Instapundit:

—<Quote begins>—

AN INTERVIEW WITH MATT RIDLEY: How Science Lost The Public’s Trust.

“Science” has become a political catchword. “I believe in science,” Joe Biden tweeted six days before he was elected president. “ Donald Trump doesn’t. It’s that simple, folks.”

But what does it mean to believe in science? The British science writer Matt Ridley draws a pointed distinction between “science as a philosophy” and “science as an institution.” The former grows out of the Enlightenment, which Mr. Ridley defines as “the primacy of rational and objective reasoning.” The latter, like all human institutions, is erratic, prone to falling well short of its stated principles. Mr. Ridley says the Covid pandemic has “thrown into sharp relief the disconnect between science as a philosophy and science as an institution.” . . .

Vaccines have been central to the question of “misinformation” and the White House’s pressure campaign against social media to censor it. Mr. Ridley worries about the opposite problem: that social media “is complicit in enforcing conformity.” It does this “through ‘fact checking,’ mob pile-ons, and direct censorship, now explicitly at the behest of the Biden administration.” He points out that Facebook and Wikipedia long banned any mention of the possibility that the virus leaked from a Wuhan laboratory.

“Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as [the physicist Richard] Feynman put it.” Mr. Ridley reserves his bluntest criticism for “science as a profession,” which he says has become “rather off-puttingly arrogant and political, permeated by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.” Increasing numbers of scientists “seem to fall prey to groupthink, and the process of peer-reviewing and publishing allows dogmatic gate-keeping to get in the way of new ideas and open-minded challenge.”

The World Health Organization is a particular offender: “We had a dozen Western scientists go to China in February and team up with a dozen Chinese scientists under the auspices of the WHO.” At a subsequent press conference they pronounced the lab-leak theory “extremely unlikely.” The organization also ignored Taiwanese cries for help with Covid-19 in January 2020. “The Taiwanese said, ‘We’re picking up signs that this is a human-to-human transmission that threatens a major epidemic. Please, will you investigate?’ And the WHO basically said, ‘You’re from Taiwan. We’re not allowed to talk to you.’ ”

He notes that WHO’s primary task is forestalling pandemics. Yet in 2015 it “put out a statement saying that the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century is climate change. Now that, to me, suggests an organization not focused on the day job.”

In Mr. Ridley’s view, the scientific establishment has always had a tendency “to turn into a church, enforcing obedience to the latest dogma and expelling heretics and blasphemers.” This tendency was previously kept in check by the fragmented nature of the scientific enterprise: Prof. A at one university built his career by saying that Prof. B’s ideas somewhere else were wrong. In the age of social media, however, “the space for heterodoxy is evaporating.” So those who believe in science as philosophy are increasingly estranged from science as an institution. It’s sure to be a costly divorce.

Everything run by the global ruling class becomes church-like, except, oddly, actual churches.


Mr. Ridley notes that the question of Covid’s origin has “mostly been tackled by people outside the mainstream scientific establishment.” People inside not only have been “disappointingly incurious” but have tried to shut down the inquiry “to protect the reputation of science as an institution.” The most obvious reason for this resistance: If Covid leaked from a lab, and especially if it developed there, “science finds itself in the dock.”

Other factors have been at play as well. Scientists are as sensitive as other elites to charges of racism, which the Communist Party used to evade questions about specifically Chinese practices “such as the trade in wildlife for food or lab experiments on bat coronaviruses in the city of Wuhan.”

Scientists are a global guild, and the Western scientific community has “come to have a close relationship with, and even a reliance on, China.”

The Chinese must be astounded at how easy it has been to suborn our institutions.

—<Quote ends>—

I am not so worried about the Chinese: they went way out of their way to rip apart their future. Even plenty of money, a chain of submissive and gullible foreigners, and a massive international security service is no substitute for a dead future.

I am not even that worried about Our Betters: they placed their bet on control of academia, the courts, the universities, the newspapers and TV stations, and – just in case – all the mainstream churches. All of which are collapsing into irrelevance. The only real control tool they have are the welfare and regulatory state, which are both showing their age.

What worries me is the fearfulness, faithlessness and hopelessness of Christians. I want competent leaders in a free society, but Christians who hate the Law will never provide either the leadership or have the interest in liberty, or have an interest in expanding the dominion, the Kingdom of God.

This is what worries me, and this is what needs to change.

Defiance, Russian Style

From LewRockwell’s Blog:

—<Quote begins>—

It took all of 3 weeks. Almost as soon as Moscow decreed a COVID vaccine & test passport it had to be abandoned. Not because of a flashy mass protest but thanks to typical Russian mass subversion at the grassroots. Numerous Muscovites quickly got themselves fake QR passports of varying quality and catering establishments elected not to look at them too closely. The result being that with each passing day the authorities looked more impotent and weak, their unenforceable imposition semi-openly defied by the living, breathing city. 

Now choosing between the long humiliation of their decree becoming entirely dead letter (as has already happened to their idiotic gloves mandate), or the quick humiliation of a speedy reversal they opted for the latter. Some nonsense was written about how the QR codes miraculously helped turn things around in just 3 weeks and the decree was dropped. Tomorrow COVID passports are out, as well as a curfew for bars and clubs.

Bill Martin, who sent this encouraging news, observes, “We should take note. They’ve been subverting govt with small victories for a long time.”

And some big ones, too, such as this!

—<Quote ends>—

Three Spikes and You’re In

An interesting video on 2020 electoral corruption, posted on Rumble:

The majority of the public will never see this video.

It will never be on YouTube, that mass media Democratic mouthpiece.

But it’s on Rumble.

It might somehow get on Odysee.

Or BitChute.

Or Peertube.

Or even hosted on your own website.

Who knows?

(Nod to North, who has now closed new subscriptions)