An article titled “Six Scams that Prey on the Elderly” that appeared on Kiplinger.com last year has recently been reposted on Pocket. Although there is a Social Security scam that the author (Miriam Cross) mentions as one of the six, the fact that Social Security itself is a scam is never mentioned.

“Many scams are universal,” begins Cross, “from the IRS impostor who calls and threatens to arrest you if you don’t pay your taxes, to phishing emails that trick you into sending sensitive data or downloading malware onto your computer.”

But some scams specifically target the elderly.

“Older adults may fall for certain scams because they are in the habit of answering calls from unknown callers, open junk mail rather than tossing it in the trash, or are not as practiced with the privacy settings on social media as younger generations.” Larry Santucci agrees. He co-authored a report about elder financial victimization for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. “Older adults make great targets because they have accumulated assets over time and are living off their savings. Some are also very lonely or socially isolated, which makes them susceptible to exploitation.”

“Here are six scams that you and your parents should watch out for,” warns Cross.

Sweepstakes or Lottery: You are told that you have won or could win a jackpot, but you need to pay a fee to receive your prize.

Tech Support: A so-called tech support representative calls and claims that your computer is infected with a virus and requests remote access or payment for virus removal services.

“Grandchild” in Need: Someone claiming to be your grandchild calls — sounding frantic — because he needs cash to deal with an emergency.

Romance: You get a message online that says something like “Don’t you remember me?” A seducer then spends time building a relationship before asking for money.

Natural Disasters and Contractors: Fake contractors will go door-to-door offering fix-it services, ask for instant payment, promise to start working the next day, and then disappear.

Social Security: Someone claiming to be a Social Security staffer contacts you and tries to extract money or personal details by pretending that there is a problem with your account, that your Social Security number has been suspended, or that you’re owed a cost-of-living benefit increase.

No doubt some seniors have fallen for one or more of these scams. But the greatest scam that seniors have fallen for is the scam of Social Security — not a scam involving someone claiming to be from the Social Security Administration, but the scam of Social Security itself.

Here are the six scams of Social Security that most seniors in the United States have fallen for.

1. Social Security has a trust fund.

Most Americans believe that there exists somewhere an account in the Social Security trust funds with their name on it. The truth, however, is that the Social Security trust funds are government accounting fictions. There are no reserves in an account for people to draw from. There is no lock box. All Social Security benefits are paid from current taxes collected, as the Social Security Administration (SSA) acknowledges. The “trust fund” is just a gigantic IOU from the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, since 2010, total expenditures of Social Security have exceeded the non-interest income of its combined trust funds. That is because the ratio of those paying into the system to those collecting benefits has declined from more than forty to one down to about three to one. According to Social Security’s Annual Report, the trust funds “would be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2035.” After that, “the combined funds’ reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits.” The reality is that the Social Security deficit is made up from the federal government’s general fund. But, again, there is a problem. Federal budgets are now about $5 trillion a year, annual budget deficits are more than $1 trillion, and the national debt is now more than $27 trillion. Social Security is not just underfunded, it is unsustainable.

2. Retirees are entitled to Social Security benefits.

Most Americans believe that retirees are entitled to Social Security benefits because they paid into the system their entire working lives. But the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no contractual right to receive benefits. Congress can revise the Social Security benefit schedule at any time, use a means-test to determine eligibility, raise the Social Security tax rate, increase or eliminate the wage base upon which Social Security taxes are figured, raise the retirement age, or increase the percentage of benefits that are taxable. And if Americans are entitled to Social Security benefits, then why does the government tax them in the first place?

3. Social Security benefits are related to the amount of Social Security taxes paid.

Social Security is funded by a 12.4 percent payroll tax (split equally between employers and employees) on the first $137,700 of employee income. Self-employed persons pay the full 12.4 percent, but receive a tax deduction equal to 50 percent of the amount of the Social Security tax they paid. One must pay Social Security taxes for a minimum of 40 quarters, or 10 years, to be eligible for benefits. But there is no relation between taxes paid and Social Security benefits received. Benefits are figured on the basis of one’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings (up to a particular year’s wage base), adjusted for inflation; in other words: the benefits are calculated by some arbitrary formula that Congress can change at any time.

4. Social Security is a good investment.

Although Ida Mae Fuller, the first recipient of Social Security, paid in only $24.75 and received $22,888.92 in benefits (she lived to be 100), for many years now Social Security has been a bad investment. Many workers who pay into Social Security end up with a negative annual rate of return. A report by the Heritage Foundation concluded that “Americans would be better off keeping their payroll tax contributions and putting them into private retirement accounts than having to sacrifice them to the government’s broken Social Security system.” Politics has nothing to do with it. It is just a matter of simple math. Economist Walter Williams once did the math and pointed out that a man reaching age 65 in the year 2000 could expect to receive $71,000 more in government transfer payments (of which the largest amount is Social Security) than he paid in taxes. But a 20-year-old man who entered the workforce in the year 2000 could expect to pay $312,000 more in taxes than he would ever receive in benefits. A man can pay into Social Security his whole working life and, if he dies upon retirement without dependents, his Social Security benefits die with him. Although Social Security is presented as retirement insurance for which one pays premiums or contributions, it is not a retirement plan, an insurance program, a savings account, a 401(k)-type account, an IRA, an investment vehicle, a pension fund, an annuity, or a safety net.

5. Senior citizens can’t make ends meet without Social Security.

Most Americans believe that without Social Security senior citizens would be impoverished, go hungry, and die in the streets. But according to the IRS, incomes for households whose members are 65 and older grew more than twice as fast as working-age households. Seniors as a group are now one of the richest segments of the population. According to the Federal Reserve, “Among households age 55 to 69, retirement savings grew from 232 percent of annual earnings in 1989 to 471 percent in 2016.” And according to the SSA, “Americans born between 1926 and 1935 had a median retirement income equal to 111 percent of their inflation-adjusted career-average earnings.”

6. Social Security is not welfare.

When most Americans think of government welfare programs they usually have in mind the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps); Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Medicaid; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Section 8 housing vouchers; or Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Some Americans would also include refundable tax credits, Medicare, and unemployment compensation. Few Americans recognize that Social Security is also a welfare program. It is the cornerstone of the welfare state, a relic from the New Deal, the largest welfare program, and the greatest expenditure of the federal government. Like any welfare program, Social Security fosters dependency on the government, crowds out real charity, shifts responsibility from the individual to society, shifts responsibility from families to the state, and contributes to class warfare. Social Security is an intergenerational, income-transfer, wealth-redistribution welfare program that takes money from those who work and gives it to those who don’t.

Social Security is the biggest government scam that has ever existed.

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

I think that a common theme among my conservative correspondents is: “is this the end of free elections?” Will our Democratic friends be fixing all the presidential elections from here on out? Will I have to bow to the liberal mob if I want a job? And so on.

I guess that I have a more optimistic outlook on things. But why, I asked myself? Here are a few.

First, I concur with Crane Brinton in The Anatomy of Revolution. He writes that a Reign of Terror is a sign that the prophecy of the revolution — that heaven on earth was right around the corner — was failing.

Second, I go with Gaetano Mosca in The Ruling Class. He writes that a good ruling class, one that is likely to stick around, is one that has a “political formula” that resonates with the masses. But our ruling class’s political formula right now seems to be the “oppressed peoples, allies, white oppressors” narrative that even showed up in the Snowflake Penguins incident. The Snowflakes at the South Pole had just been to Allyship training!

Just between you and me — and don’t tell the nice liberal lady with the Hate Has No Home Here yard-sign — I think that the “oppressed peoples, allies, white oppressors” political formula  is a cruelly exclusive doctrine that cuts out the great middle of America. No ruling class with half a brain would go for a political formula like that.

Third, there is the Reds Under the Bed conspiracy theory. Back in the day, it took five lost presidential elections in a row — 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948 — before the Republican Tailgunner Joe started nosing around looking for a conspiracy of Commies in the State Department. Now I regard it as perfectly natural and physical that you start wondering about whether Da Fix Is In after you lose five presidential elections in a row. But our Democratic friends started with the conspiracy stuff upon losing one election! And then decided to steal the next election! Come on, fellahs! Don’t you think that in 2024 the American people will be absolutely sick of Donald Trump and decide it is Time for a Change? Are you dumb or something? Or is there something we don’t know that is liable to surface during a second Trump administration, so you chaps have to get rid of him now before it is too late?

See, the reason I have been reading Mosca’s Ruling Class is, first, that I think that Curtis Yarvin is as smart as paint, and second, that I desperately want to believe that our corrupt and declining ruling class really is on the way out.

Let’s use Mosca’s ruling-class analysis to evaluate our ruling class.

First, a ruling class has to have a “political formula,” something not like “all whites are racist.” But in fact, the ruling classes across the developed world do not believe in their separate nations; they are globalists. Joe Biden’s  political formula is to save the planet from climate change and fight systemic racism: completely out of sync with the average American.

Second, a ruling class has to develop a good system of “juridical defense.” Yeah. What’s that when it’s at home? Mosca means “public opinion, religion, law and the whole social mechanism that enforces observance” of the general “moral sense” of society. I’d say that right now, with the cancel culture and Defund the Police, our ruling class’s “juridical defense” system is in the ditch, completely out of sync with the “moral sense” of the average American.

Third, to keep itself up to the mark, and refresh its membership, the ruling class needs to be open to aspirants from the lower classes. Anyone around here think that our current ruling class believes it has anything to learn from the lower classes, excepting only its favored Little Darlings that tick all the right boxes on the DIE front? I’d say that right now, the one group the ruling class does not want to invite into its inner sanctum is ordinary unspecial Americans.

See why I am not discouraged? Our ruling class is a bunch of losers, and they can’t even get the basics right. So it’s not a question of If, but When.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

“America’s prosperity was not a gift from the government or anyone else. Free enterprise, not government, is the source from which our blessings flow.” -Ronald Reagan on Prosperity

I think that this quote by Ronald Reagan on prosperity just about perfectly sums up why we need to be mindful of government promises of prosperity.

Yes, the government can implement policies that don’t constrain citizen action enough to limit wealth creation too much and we should always support politicians that promise those policies. But, frankly, any government action will only hurt the economy. The government might be here to help, but it’s like your idiot coworker that offers to help; even if its intentions are benign, its actions will likely end up hurting what you’re doing.

That’s an important fact to remember during this Chinese flu crisis. The formerly booming Trump economy has been devastated by China’s irresponsible behavior, so we’re looking for solutions. Congress voted for a $2 trillion “stimulus” plan that’s not really a stimulus but is rather a government handout and wealth redistribution scheme.

In our efforts to bring back the Trump economy, politicians and citizens alike seem to be forgetting what made that economy so strong in the first place: deregulation, tax cuts, and pro-capitalism policies. That is to say, Trump implemented the magic formula of economic success. Now, far too many people in the US are asking an organization that can’t even handle filling in potholes on time to both rebuild an economy and manage our medical system. Color me skeptical- I see no way in which that’ll work. Instead, it will likely just make everyone worse off and create unnecessary inefficiencies in the economy; Big Government is always worse than capitalism.

So, what should we do to fight off the Coronavirus while also avoiding the virus of socialism? Unleash the free market. Let people make their own decisions. If they want to work, eat out, party with friends, etc., then we should let them. If they want to remain hermits to avoid getting the China flu, then let them. Freedom will provide a solution and lead to prosperity in a way that government never will.

Even more importantly, free-market policies will mean that we retain our liberty. Governments traditionally use crises to seize ever-more power, as Jonah Goldberg describes in Liberal Fascism. We can’t let that happen here, which means we need to remember not to trust the government. If you want a prosperous America, then listen to and remember what is in this quote by Ronald Reagan on prosperity and support the free market, not Big Government policies of control! The free market will make you, and the rest of society, prosperous. Big government and government control over the economy will impoverish you and everyone else.

By: Gen Z Conservative

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey — like a lone voice in the intellectual and political wilderness — has launched a DEFENSE of capitalism. Imagine that.

Mackey said some of the additional “disasters of progressivism” were that it teaches people to not be patriotic about America and portrays the country as “the worst that’s ever existed.” He added that progressivism was authoritarian, self-righteous, and canceled people who have different views. Mackey also noted that Whole Foods has had multiple stores that have been damaged in “peaceful protests” by the political Left.

“They talk about trickle-down wealth, but socialism is trickle-up poverty,” Mackey continued. “It just impoverishes everything. That’s my fear, that the Marxists and socialists, the academic community is generally hostile to business. It always has been. This is not new.”

“Innovationism is the greatest thing that humanity’s ever created,” Mackey continued. “I mean if you go back 200 years ago when innovationism was really beginning to pick up steam, 94% of everybody alive on the planet on earth lived on less than two dollars a day, 94% percent, only 6% made more than two dollars a day and that’s in today’s dollars. Today that’s under 10%.”

Mackey said that actions by the Left have made it “harder to do business” since America is in “kind of a rocky place right now.” Mackey specifically mentioned the “defund the police” movement, saying that the company has to hire significantly more security guards now.

Mackey said that the culture in the business world needs to evolve, “otherwise the socialists are going to take over and that’s the path to poverty.”

“Business people are not the villains of the story, they’re the heroes of the story,” he added. “The entrepreneurs are the ones that create great progress and they’re universally vilified.”

He added that the whole reason that socialism has gained steam is because people have been falsely indoctrinated into believing that businesses are motivated by greed and exploitative.

“That is wrong,” he said. “Capitalism is the greatest thing humanity’s ever done, we told a bad narrative and we’ve let the enemies of business and the enemies of capitalism put out a narrative about us that’s wrong, it’s inaccurate and it’s doing tremendous damage to the minds of young people. We have to counter that.”

Mackey also slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) “Green New Deal,” saying that it will cause the U.S. to regress.

How refreshing, to hear people who benefit from capitalism willing to defend capitalism.

Success and achievement are nothing to apologize for. Poverty, despair and tyranny ARE things to be ashamed of. Why is success always on trial, while failure and misery are always upheld as the ideal? It’s twisted, it’s sick and it’s morally wrong.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

It’s obvious why the Chinese Communist Party wants Trump gone. He’s stopped the 100 Year Marathon of Chinese subterfuge to undermine America and make her a vassal state. He has also threatened the underpinnings of the mercantilist Chinese economy, a house of cards that depends on the American dumping ground for cheaply made, sub-par Chinese Goods.

President Xi cannot let Trump stay in power or he loses the ‘mandate from heaven’, or the divine justification for Xi’s totalitarian state. At the end of the day, Chinese elites have made a bargain with the devil — give the CCP political control and legitimacy in exchange for wealth and overseas access. This is what keeps the CCP in power…lose it and Xi is relegated to the trash bin of history.

And, Xi is very afraid of losing it – hence the attempted coordinated action against Trump.

The Iranian connection to the coup attempt is obvious. Tehran’s grip on power is dying due to Trump geopolitical pressure. POTUS completely reversed the Obama collusion with the murderous mullahs, the pathway to getting the regime the bomb. Trump has applied severe economic pressure as well, snuffing out the billions in graft every year the mullahs commit against the helpless Iranian people. Regime change is also in the administration’s playbook. The mullahs know it is only a matter of time.

The curious entry into this discussion is the Russian Federation. We have not heard much about Russian involvement against Trump during the last few years; the Kremlin prefers to remain in the shadows. However, no one has been tougher against Russia’s activities overseas that Donald J. Trump. From the launching of missiles in Syria, the killing of hundreds of Russian mercenaries by America Special Operations air power in the Levant, the shutting down of the Nord Stream II pipeline carrying Russian gas into Germany, sanctions, and on and on and on. Although the Kremlin would preferred not to be dealing with such a tough American leader, a Biden Administration will for sure return to the Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative of the Mueller fake investigation.https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-9331199010114401&output=html&h=173&slotname=6818685216&adk=2846028415&adf=3370083412&pi=t.ma~as.6818685216&w=692&fwrn=4&lmt=1606752270&rafmt=11&psa=1&format=692×173&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcreativedestructionmedia.com%2Fanalysis%2F2020%2F11%2F29%2Fwhy-our-foreign-and-domestic-enemies-want-trump-gone%2F&flash=0&wgl=1&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjo2fSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MX1d&dt=1606752269383&bpp=11&bdt=2616&idt=1411&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D768d92134e1ea17f-22d7cc461fc50068%3AT%3D1606708676%3ART%3D1606708676%3AS%3DALNI_Mbzl-r1TcrCJBaenZSpPmZTNCtuWQ&prev_fmts=712×280&correlator=2845234758833&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=1635540382.1606708672&ga_sid=1606752271&ga_hid=1056963090&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=562966609036284&dssz=62&mdo=0&mso=0&rplot=4&u_tz=-300&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=1138&u_w=712&u_ah=1138&u_aw=712&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=10&ady=2071&biw=712&bih=970&scr_x=0&scr_y=244&eid=21066651%2C44731609%2C21067496%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=99624177551847&pem=458&rx=0&eae=0&fc=900&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C712%2C0%2C712%2C970%2C712%2C970&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8320&bc=31&ifi=2&uci=a!2&btvi=1&fsb=1&xpc=TYyBHp96Tn&p=https%3A//creativedestructionmedia.com&dtd=1434

We at CDMedia have always tried to explain the Russian enigma as best we could. On one hand Putin would prefer a leader that is open to working together in some areas, as Trump surely is, but Putin does not want such a tough negotiator sitting across the geopolitical table.

Yesterday, Lt General Thomas McInerney declared in an interview he had proof of Russian involvement in the coup from the servers acquired via the U.S. military in Germany. This is the first we have heard of this and will be looking out for more details and will report as we come across.

As far as our domestic enemies are concerned, they are literally fighting for their corrupt lives. If Trump is inaugurated, they go to prison, hundreds, maybe thousands of them. They know this. Hence, the coordination with the Chicoms, the Iranians, etc. As we have said many times on these pages, the Obama administration was the most corrupt in history, literally treasonous, selling us out to Islamic extremists, Chinese communists, and the communist movement in general. They cannot let Trump exist, or they die metaphorically, as they should.

One thing is for sure, there is much going on that we the public do not know. CDMedia will try our best to bring the truth as we see it.

CDMedia Staff

If there is one point on which all philosophic schools of the last two hundred years agree, it is that no rational foundation for morality is possible. Limiting reason to syllogistic deduction, ignoring the fact that deduction presupposes induction and concept-formation, philosophers have concluded that it is impossible to prove any code of values. It is impossible, they say, to derive an “ought” from an “is.” Yet Ayn Rand has done just that — not by deducing values from facts, but by pointing out the facts of reality which give rise to the concept “value,” and therefore to all “oughts.”

Her derivation begins with the identification that ‘“value’ is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.”¹ Observing that “the concept ‘value’ is not a primary,”² she went on to ask what underlies the whole phenomenon of action to gain values.

She found the answer in the fact that man faces the constant alternative of life or death. As a living entity, man has survival needs — things he must act to obtain in order to remain in existence. This is the fact that makes value-seeking action possible and necessary. I quote one of the most important paragraphs Ayn Rand ever wrote:

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence — and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”³

Apart from the need for self-sustaining action, no values can exist and no value-concepts can be given meaning. To speak of a “value” that is unrelated to one’s survival needs is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. The fact that an organism’s continued existence depends upon its actions is the root of values as such.

“In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life.”⁴

Since man has free will, he does not automatically act in the direction of his survival. He is not born with the knowledge of what his survival needs are or how to fulfill them, nor is he genetically programmed to gain this knowledge and act accordingly. As a conceptual being, man needs the guidance of principles; he needs an integrated, hierarchical system of values and virtues; he needs a code of morality.

Ayn Rand solved the dilemma that had stymied all previous moral philosophers. It seemed that the basis of morality — an ultimate value — could not itself be justified. For either the ultimate value is held as a value by choice or not. If choice is not involved, if factors beyond his control compel man to pursue the ultimate value, then morality is impossible: whatever one does, one had to do. But if, on the other hand, the ultimate value is subject to choice, then morality is, they held, subjective, for there is no higher value obligating one to choose any one ultimate value over any other.

This dilemma vanishes once one grasps that “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” The issue of justifying choices arises only within the context of having chosen to live.

Holding one’s life as an ultimate value is a matter of choice: man does not automatically value his own life, and there is no such thing as a “duty” or “categorical imperative” obligating one to live. But this does not make morality subjective or arbitrary. For fundamentally, one’s choice is to live, and hence to define and pursue the values one’s life requires, or not to live, and hence to have no values, take no actions, and perish. “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.”⁵

NOTE: This is Part II of a series.

Project Syndicate, a commentary and analysis website partly financed by billionaire financier George Soros, refused to publish Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s response to Soros’ op-ed article from Nov. 18.

In the article, Soros accused Orbán and Poland’s “de facto ruler Jarosław Kaczyński” of finding the rule of law “a practical limit on personal and political corruption.”

In response, Orbán has published the letter on a Hungarian government website. 

“The Soros network, which has woven itself through Europe’s bureaucracy and its political elite, has for years been working to make Europe an immigrant continent,” Orbán wrote. “Today the Soros network, which promotes a global open society and seeks to abolish national frameworks, is the greatest threat faced by the states of the European Union.”

In the article, Orbán wrote that he was advised against responding as a prime minister to the opinion of an “economic criminal”, but indicated that he wanted to raise his voice against the fact that “the Hungarian-born speculator and billionaire George Soros issued open commands to the leaders of the European Union”.

Orban was also clear about what he believes Soros’ end goal is.

“The goals of the network are obvious: to create multi-ethnic, multicultural open societies by accelerating migration, and to dismantle national decision-making, placing it in the hands of the global elite,” he wrote.

Orbán wrote that while Europe was first fighting a huge migration wave that began in 2015 and is now also battling the coronavirus pandemic, the Soros-network continued to pursue its goals to create multi-ethnic, multicultural open societies by accelerating migration, and to dismantle national decision-making, placing it in the hands of the global elite.

“During all these crises, this speculator — who calls himself a philanthropist — did not consider the interests of the people of Europe, but acted to his own advantage,” Orbán wrote. “Memorably he attacked the Hungarian forint and Hungary’s largest bank in the economic crisis, and he planned to speed up, distribute and finance the resettlement of immigrants during the migrant crisis; and now he is proposing that Member States punish one another, instead of embracing solidarity and mutual assistance.”

He also underscored the main differences between Hungarian policy and Soros’ agenda:

“Soros wants an open society, while we want a safe society. According to him, democracy can only be liberal, while we think it can be Christian,” Orbán wrote. “According to him, freedom can only serve self-realization, while we believe that freedom can also be used to follow the teachings of Christ, to serve one’s country, and to protect our families.”

A full of transcript of Orbán’s response article is reprinted below:

Many believe that the prime minister of a country should not enter into an argument with George Soros. Their reasoning is that Soros is an economic criminal, because he made his money through speculation, ruining the lives of millions of people, and even blackmailing entire national economies. Just as governments must not negotiate with terrorists, they say, prime ministers must likewise not debate with economic criminals.

Yet now I am compelled to do so, because in an article appearing on the Project Syndicate website on 18 November, the Hungarian-born speculator and billionaire George Soros issued open commands to the leaders of the European Union. In his article he instructs them to severely punish those Member States that do not want to become part of a unifying European empire under the banner of a global “open society”.

Throughout history, Europe’s strength has always been derived from its nations. Although of different origins, European nations were bound together by the common roots of our faith. The foundation of our communities was the European family model, itself based on Judeo-Christian traditions. It was Christian freedom which ensured freedom of thought and culture, and which created benign competition among the continent’s nations. This magnificent amalgam of contrasts made Europe the world’s leading power through centuries of history.

Every attempt to unify Europe under the aegis of empire has failed. Thus historical experience tells us that Europe will be great again if its nations become great again, and resist all forms of imperial ambition.

Great forces are once again moving to eradicate the nations of Europe and unify the continent under the aegis of a global empire. The Soros network, which has woven itself through Europe’s bureaucracy and its political elite, has for years been working to make Europe an immigrant continent. Today the Soros network, which promotes a global open society and seeks to abolish national frameworks, is the greatest threat faced by the states of the European Union. The goals of the network are obvious: to create multi-ethnic, multicultural open societies by accelerating migration, and to dismantle national decision-making, placing it in the hands of the global elite.

The European Union is suffering from multiple afflictions: since 2008 an economic crisis of proportions not seen for generations; since 2015 a migration crisis; and in 2020 a devastating global pandemic. Europe has still not recovered from its previous crises, and so the impact of the coronavirus pandemic has the potential for even greater distress. There are already signs of this: in several countries public debt, unemployment rates and the general economic situation have reached critical levels. The need for European solidarity, for European nations to come together to help each other, has never been greater.

During all these crises, this speculator – who calls himself a philanthropist – did not consider the interests of the people of Europe, but acted to his own advantage. Memorably he attacked the Hungarian forint and Hungary’s largest bank in the economic crisis, and he planned to speed up, distribute and finance the resettlement of immigrants during the migrant crisis; and now he is proposing that Member States punish one another, instead of embracing solidarity and mutual assistance.

The network directed by George Soros has now discarded any hesitancy it may have had about open intervention. He wants to put more pressure on nation states than ever before. He is setting the peoples of Europe against one another. The network’s operational system is labyrinthine, and is present in various arenas of public life. On the payroll of George Soros are a long list of politicians, journalists, judges, bureaucrats and political agitators masquerading as members of civil society organizations. And although the billionaire accuses all his enemies of corruption, he himself is the most corrupt man in the world. He pays off and buys whoever he can – and those whom he cannot bribe will be slandered, humiliated, intimidated and destroyed by the network through its formidable weapon: the left-wing media battalions.

Many high-ranking EU bureaucrats are working with the Soros network to create a unified empire. They want to build an institutional system that, under the aegis of the open society, seeks to force a unified way of thinking, a unified culture and a unified social model on Europe’s free and independent nations. They seek to rescind the right of every people to decide its own destiny. This is also the purpose of their “rule of law” proposal – which does not, in fact, recognize the rule of law, but of strength. It would be more honest to call it the “rule of the majority”.

The differences between us are obvious. Soros wants an open society, while we want a safe society. According to him, democracy can only be liberal, while we think it can be Christian. According to him, freedom can only serve self-realization, while we believe that freedom can also be used to follow the teachings of Christ, to serve one’s country, and to protect our families. The basis of Christian freedom is the freedom to decide. This is now in jeopardy.

We in the eastern part of the EU know very well what it means to be free. The history of the nations of Central Europe has been a relentless struggle for freedom against great empires, a repeated battle to win our right to decide our own destinies. We have bitter first-hand experience that every imperial endeavor brings enslavement. There are still quite a few here from the generation of freedom fighters – in the former Eastern Bloc, from Estonia to Slovenia, from Dresden to Sofia – who can personally remember what it is like to oppose tyranny, the rule of man and its communist version: intimidation, material and moral ruination, physical and mental abuse. We want no more of that.

Western leaders who have lived their whole lives in a world of inherited freedom and the rule of law should now listen to those who have fought for freedom and who – based on their personal life experiences – can distinguish between the rule of law and tyranny, or the rule of man. Such Western leaders must accept that in the 21st century we shall not surrender the freedom we fought to achieve at the end of the 20th century.

The battle for and against the new Brussels empire has not yet been decided. Brussels seems to be surrendering, but many nation states continue to resist. If we want to preserve our freedom, Europe must not succumb to the Soros network.

Denes Albert, REMIX

 Capitalism as It Is and as It Is Seen by the ‘Common Man’

The emergence of economics as a new branch of knowledge was one of the most portentous events in the history of mankind. In paving the way for private capitalistic enterprise it transformed within a few generations all human affairs more radically than the preceding ten thousand years had done. From the day of their birth to the day of their demise, the denizens of a capitalistic country are every minute benefited by the marvelous achievements of the capitalistic ways of thinking and acting.

The most amazing thing concerning the unprecedented change in earthly conditions brought about by capitalism is the fact that it was accomplished by a small number of authors and a hardly greater number of statesmen who had assimilated their teachings. Not only the sluggish masses but also most of the businessmen who, by their trading, made the laissez-faire principles effective failed to comprehend the essential features of their operation. Even in the heyday of liberalism, only a few people had a full grasp of the functioning of the market economy. Western civilization adopted capitalism upon the recommendation on the part of a small élite.

There were, in the first decades of the nineteenth century, many people who viewed their own unfamiliarity with the problems concerned as a serious shortcoming and were anxious to redress it. In the years between Waterloo and Sebastopol, no other books were more eagerly absorbed in Great Britain than treatises on economics. But the vogue soon subsided. The subject was unpalatable to the general reader.

Economics is so different from the natural sciences and technology on the one hand, and history and jurisprudence on the other hand, that it seems strange and repulsive to the beginner. Its heuristic singularity is viewed with suspicion by those whose research work is performed in laboratories or in archives and libraries. Its epistemological singularity appears nonsensical to the narrow-minded fanatics of positivism. People would like to find in an economics book knowledge that perfectly fits into their preconceived image of what economics ought to be, viz., a discipline shaped according to the logical structure of physics or of biology. They are bewildered and desist from seriously grappling with problems the analysis of which requires an unwonted mental exertion.

The result of this ignorance is that people ascribe all improvements in economic conditions to the progress of the natural sciences and technology. As they see it, there prevails in the course of human history a self-acting tendency toward progressing advancement of the experimental natural sciences and their application to the solution of technological problems. This tendency is irresistible, it is inherent in the destiny of mankind, and its operation takes effect whatever the political and economic organization of society may be. As they see it, the unprecedented technological improvements of the last two hundred years were not caused or furthered by the economic policies of the age. They were not an achievement of classical liberalism, free trade, laissez-faire, and capitalism. They will therefore go on under any other system of society’s economic organization.

The doctrines of Marx received approval simply because they adopted this popular interpretation of events and clothed it with a pseudophilosophical veil that made it gratifying both to Hegelian spiritualism and to crude materialism. In the scheme of Marx the “material productive forces” are a superhuman entity independent of the will and the actions of men. They go their own way that is prescribed by the inscrutable and inevitable laws of a higher power. They change mysteriously and force mankind to adjust its social organization to these changes; for the material productive forces shun one thing: to be enchained by mankind’s social organization. The essential content of history is the struggle of the material productive forces to be freed from the social bonds by which they are fettered.

Once upon a time, teaches Marx, the material productive forces were embodied in the shape of the hand mill, and then they arranged human affairs according to the pattern of feudalism. When, later, the unfathomable laws that determine the evolution of the material productive forces substituted the steam mill for the hand mill, feudalism had to give way to capitalism. Since then the material productive forces have developed further, and their present shape imperatively requires the substitution of socialism for capitalism. Those who try to check the socialist revolution are committed to a hopeless task. It is impossible to stem the tide of historical progress.

The ideas of the so-called leftist parties differ from one another in many ways. But they agree on one point. They all look upon progressing material improvement as upon a self-acting process. The American union member takes his standard of living for granted. Fate has determined that he should enjoy amenities which were denied even to the most prosperous people of earlier generations and are still denied to non-Americans. It does not occur to him that the “rugged individualism” of big business may have played some role in the emergence of what he calls the “American way of life.” In his eyes “management” represents the unfair claims of the “exploiters” who are intent upon depriving him of his birthright. There is, he thinks, in the course of historical evolution an irrepressible tendency toward a continuous increase in the “productivity” of his labor. It is obvious that the fruits of this betterment by rights belong exclusively to him. It is his merit that—in the age of capitalism—the quotient of the value of the products turned out by the processing industries divided by the number of hands employed tended toward an increase.

The truth is that the increase in what is called the productivity of labor is due to the employment of better tools and machines. A hundred workers in a modern factory produce per unit of time a multiple of what a hundred workers used to produce in the workshops of precapitalistic craftsmen. This improvement is not conditioned by higher skill, competence, or application on the part of the individual worker. (It is a fact that the proficiency needed by medieval artisans towered far above that of many categories of present-day factory hands.) It is due to the employment of more efficient tools and machines which, in turn, is the effect of the accumulation and investment of more capital.

The terms capitalism, capital, and capitalists were employed by Marx and are today employed by most people—also by the official propaganda agencies of the United States government—with an opprobrious connotation. Yet these words pertinently point toward the main factor whose operation produced all the marvelous achievements of the last two hundred years: the unprecedented improvement of the average standard of living for a continually increasing population. What distinguishes modern industrial conditions in the capitalistic countries from those of the precapitalistic ages as well as from those prevailing today in the so-called underdeveloped countries is the amount of the supply of capital. No technological improvement can be put to work if the capital required has not previously been accumulated by saving.

Saving, capital accumulation, is the agency that has transformed step-by-step the awkward search for food on the part of savage cave dwellers into the modern ways of industry. The pacemakers of this evolution were the ideas that created the institutional framework within which capital accumulation was rendered safe by the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Every step forward on the way toward prosperity is the effect of saving. The most ingenious technological inventions would be practically useless if the capital goods required for their utilization had not been accumulated by saving.

The entrepreneurs employ the capital goods made available by the savers for the most economical satisfaction of the most urgent among the not-yet-satisfied wants of the consumers. Together with the technologists, intent upon perfecting the methods of processing, they play, next to the savers themselves, an active part in the course of events that is called economic progress. The rest of mankind profits from the activities of these three classes of pioneers. But whatever their own doings may be, they are only beneficiaries of changes to the emergence of which they did not contribute anything.

The characteristic feature of the market economy is the fact that it allots the greater part of the improvements brought about by the endeavors of the three progressive classes—those saving, those investing the capital goods and those elaborating new methods for the employment of capital goods—to the nonprogressive majority of people. Capital accumulation exceeding the increase in population raises, on the one hand, the marginal productivity of labor and, on the other hand, cheapens the products. The market process provides the common man with the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of other peoples’ achievements. It forces the three progressive classes to serve the nonprogressive majority in the best possible way.

Everybody is free to join the ranks of the three progressive classes of a capitalist society. These classes are not closed castes. Membership in them is not a privilege conferred on the individual by a higher authority or inherited from one’s ancestors. These classes are not clubs, and the ins have no power to keep out any newcomer. What is needed to become a capitalist, an entrepreneur or a deviser of new technological methods is brains and will power. The heir of a wealthy man enjoys a certain advantage as he starts under more favorable conditions than others. But his task in the rivalry of the market is not easier, but sometimes even more wearisome and less remunerative than that of a newcomer. He has to reorganize his inheritance in order to adjust it to the changes in market conditions. Thus, for instance, the problems that the heir of a railroad “empire” had to face were, in the last decades, certainly more knotty than those encountered by the man who started from scratch in trucking or in air transportation.

The popular philosophy of the common man misrepresents all these facts in the most lamentable way. As John Doe sees it, all those new industries that are supplying him with amenities unknown to his father came into being by some mythical agency called progress. Capital accumulation, entrepreneurship and technological ingenuity did not contribute anything to the spontaneous generation of prosperity. If any man has to be credited with what John Doe considers as the rise in the productivity of labor, then it is the man on the assembly line. Unfortunately, in this sinful world there is exploitation of man by man. Business skims the cream and leaves, as the Communist Manifesto points out, to the creator of all good things, to the manual worker, not more than “he requires for his maintenance and for the propagation of his race.” Consequently, “the modern worker, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper. . . . He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth.” The authors of this description of capitalistic industry are praised at universities as the greatest philosophers and benefactors of mankind and their teachings are accepted with reverential awe by the millions whose homes, besides other gadgets, are equipped with radio and television sets.

The worst exploitation, say professors, “labor” leaders and politicians, is effected by big business. They fail to realize that the characteristic mark of big business is mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. Under capitalism the workers themselves, directly or indirectly, are the main consumers of all those things that the factories are turning out.

In the early days of capitalism there was still a considerable time lag between the emergence of an innovation and its becoming accessible to the masses. About sixty years ago Gabriel Tarde was right in pointing out that an industrial innovation is the fancy of a minority before it becomes the need of everybody; what was considered first as an extravagance turns later into a customary requisite of all and sundry. This statement was still correct with regard to the popularization of the automobile. But big-scale production by big business has shortened and almost eliminated this time lag. Modern innovations can only be produced profitably according to the methods of mass production and hence become accessible to the many at the very moment of their practical inauguration. There was, for instance, in the United States no sensible period in which the enjoyment of such innovations as television, nylon stockings or canned baby food was reserved to a minority of the well-to-do. Big business tends, in fact, toward a standardization of the peoples’ ways of consumption and enjoyment.

Nobody is needy in the market economy because of the fact that some people are rich. The riches of the rich are not the cause of the poverty of anybody. The process that makes some people rich is, on the contrary, the corollary of the process that improves many peoples’ want satisfaction. The entrepreneurs, the capitalists and the technologists prosper as far as they succeed in best supplying the consumers.

The Anti-capitalistic Front

From the very beginnings of the socialist movement and the endeavors to revive the interventionist policies of the precapitalistic ages, both socialism and interventionism were utterly discredited in the eyes of those conversant with economic theory. But the ideas of the revolutionaries and reformers found approval with the immense majority of ignorant people exclusively driven by the most powerful human passions of envy and hatred.

The social philosophy of the Enlightenment that paved the way for the realization of the liberal program—economic freedom, consummated in the market economy (capitalism), and its constitutional corollary, representative government—did not suggest the annihilation of the three old powers: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the churches. The European liberals aimed at the substitution of the parliamentary monarchy for royal absolutism, not at the establishment of republican government. They wanted to abolish the privileges of the aristocrats, but not to deprive them of their titles, their escutcheons and their estates. They were eager to grant to everybody freedom of conscience and to put an end to the persecution of dissenters and heretics, but they were anxious to give to all churches and denominations perfect freedom in the pursuit of their spiritual objectives. Thus the three great powers of the ancien régime were preserved. One might have expected that princes, aristocrats and clergymen who indefatigably professed their conservatism would be prepared to oppose the socialist attack upon the essentials of Western civilization. After all, the harbingers of socialism did not shrink from disclosing that under socialist totalitarianism no room would be left for what they called the remnants of tyranny, privilege and superstition.

However, even with these privileged groups resentment and envy were more intense than cool reasoning. They virtually joined hands with the socialists disregarding the fact that socialism aimed also at the confiscation of their holdings and that there cannot be any religious freedom under a totalitarian system. The Hohenzollern in Germany inaugurated a policy that an American observer called monarchical socialism. [Cf. Elmer Roberts, Monarchical Socialism in Germany, New York, 1913.] The autocratic Romanoffs of Russia toyed with labor unionism as a weapon to fight the “bourgeois” endeavors to establish representative government. [Cf. Mania Gordon, Workers Before and After Lenin, New York, 1941, pp. 30 II.] In every European country the aristocrats were virtually cooperating with the enemies of capitalism. Everywhere eminent theologians tried to discredit the free enterprise system and thus, by implication, to support either socialism or radical interventionism. Some of the outstanding leaders of present-day Protestantism—Barth and Brunner in Switzerland, Niebuhr and Tillich in the United States, and the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple—openly condemn capitalism and even charge the alleged failures of capitalism with the responsibility for all the excesses of Russian Bolshevism.

One may wonder whether Sir William Harcourt was right when, more than sixty years ago, he proclaimed: We are all socialists now. But today governments, political parties, teachers and writers, militant antitheists as well as Christian theologians are almost unanimous in passionately rejecting the market economy and praising the alleged benefits of state omnipotence. The rising generation is brought up in an environment that is engrossed in socialist ideas.

The influence of the prosocialist ideology comes to light in the way in which public opinion, almost without any exception, explains the reasons that induce people to join the Socialist or Communist parties. In dealing with domestic politics, one assumes that, “naturally and necessarily,” those who are not rich favor the radical programs—planning, socialism, communism—while only the rich have reason to vote [28] for the preservation of the market economy. This assumption takes for granted the fundamental socialist idea that the economic interests of the masses are hurt by the operation of capitalism for the sole benefit of the “exploiters” and that socialism will improve the common man’s standard of living.

However, people do not ask for socialism because they know that socialism will improve their conditions, and they do not reject capitalism because they know that it is a system prejudicial to their interests. They are socialists because they believe that socialism will improve their conditions, and they hate capitalism because they believe that it harms them. They are socialists because they are blinded by envy and ignorance. They stubbornly refuse to study economics and spurn the economists’ devastating critique of the socialist plans because, in their eyes, economics, being an abstract theory, is simply nonsense. They pretend to trust only in experience. But they no less stubbornly refuse to take cognizance of the undeniable facts of experience, viz., that the common man’s standard of living is incomparably higher in capitalistic America than in the socialist paradise of the Soviets.

In dealing with conditions in the economically backward countries people display the same faulty reasoning. They think that these peoples must “naturally” sympathize with communism because they are poverty-stricken. Now it is obvious that the poor nations want to get rid of their penury. Aiming at an improvement of their unsatisfactory conditions, they ought therefore to adopt that system of society’s economic organization which best warrants the attainment of this end; they ought to decide in favor of capitalism. But, deluded by spurious anti-capitalistic ideas, they are favorably disposed to communism. It is paradoxical indeed that the leaders of these Oriental peoples, while casting longing glances at the prosperity of the Western nations, reject the methods that made the West prosperous and are enraptured by Russian communism that is instrumental in keeping the Russians and their satellites poor. It is still more paradoxical that Americans, enjoying the products of capitalistic big business, exalt the Soviet system and consider it quite “natural” that the poor nations of Asia and Africa should prefer communism to capitalism.

People may disagree on the question of whether everybody ought to study economics seriously. But one thing is certain. A man who publicly talks or writes about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without having fully familiarized himself with all that economics has to say about these issues is an irresponsible babbler.

Excerpted from Ludwig Von Mises The Anti-Capitalist Mentality. First published in 1956.

Philosopher Herbert Spencer laid out the appropriate limits on what government does well enough to benefit citizens in “Representative Government—What is it Good For?” It merits close attention.

GOVERNMENT is frequently proposed as a panacea for seemingly every problem. But since government is just people with less relevant information and worse incentives than those acting for themselves, backed with coercive power, it is a false promise whose main result is the evisceration of liberty.

The government can only benefit everyone when tightly constrained to enforcing only equal, “natural” rights for all, reserving other choices to individuals.

Our political machine … Its parts are extremely numerous: multiplied, indeed, beyond all reason. They are not severally chosen as specially qualified for particular functions. No care is taken that they shall fit well together: on the contrary, our arrangements are such that they are certain not to fit … had the problem been to find an appliance for the slow and bungling transaction of business, it could scarcely have been better solved.

Besides devising measures to prevent the aggression of citizens on one another, and to secure each the quiet possession of his own…[governments] unhesitatingly take on themselves to provide for countless wants, to cure countless ills, to oversee countless affairs … confident that they know what knowledge is most required. What must be the knowledge and capacities of those who shall achieve it.

If there be any lack of insight respecting the mutual dependence of the many functions which, taken together, make up the national life, unforeseen disasters will ensue from not perceiving how an interference with one will affect the rest. See, then, the immense incongruity between the end and the means … the countless difficulties of the task; and … the almost total unpreparedness of those who undertake it.

Covid is a real virus. It is a threat to a small minority of the population—primarily people with poor immune systems and comorbidities.

There are inexpensive ways of boosting immune systems with supplements, such as zinc, vitimans C and D3, Beta Glucan, and NAC. But public health officials have not educated the public about the value of supplements in the Covid battle. The reason is that so-called public health officials are shills for Big Pharma’s profits, and Big Pharma regards good immune systems as a hindrence to profits.

There are also two effective, safe, and inexpensive cures for Covid. One is the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, and zinc. The other is the combination of ivermectin, azithromycin, and zinc.

The use of these known cures has been blocked by public health officials, such as Tony Fauci of the National Institute of Health. Again, the reason is Big Pharma’s profits. The use of these effective cures negates the profit opportunity of a new vaccine.

So many have died by denying treatment while we wait for a vaccine that some experts worry will be more dangerous than Covid.

Keeping Covid alive as a threat serves other harmful purposes. As I wrote on November 13, the main threat from Covid is not the disease. When Covid subsides as a threat, the increased powers of government over citizens will remain.

In Europe and in parts of the US, it is clear that the people understand that the lockdowns and mask rules are a bigger threat to them than Covid. In Germany there have been mass protests, which are spreading elsewhere in Europe.

.Klaus Madersbacher says Germans have memories of where the use of arbitrary power leads. Unlike the American “anti-fascist” Antifa and BLM movements which conduct kristallnachts against white businesses, a real anti-fascist movement in Germany fights against the lockdown.

In Huntington Beach, California, there were protests early Sunday morning against the Democrat governor’s curfew.

Sheriffs in five California counties with a population of 17,250,000 people refuse to enforce the nutty governor’s curfew.

Even the police, who welcome any excuse to exercise power, are backing away from enforcing ineffective but intrusive Covid rules. Just as the California sheriffs are declining, the police chief in Leipzig, Germany, said that there is no point in using the police to fight a pandemic.

The only reason that the “pandemic” continues is that Western public health officials are financially tied in one way or another with Big Pharma, and public health officials are using their positions in the interest of these financial connections.

Paul Craig Roberts