I wonder how long it will take for Faux (Fox) Propaganda (News) to shit can John Stossel? Lord knows we can’t have truth out there for the slaves to see!
I wonder how long it will take for Faux (Fox) Propaganda (News) to shit can John Stossel? Lord knows we can’t have truth out there for the slaves to see!
This talk was delivered at the Jeremy Davis Mises Circle in Houston, Texas, on January 23, 2010.
I’m finding it ever more difficult to describe to people the kind of world that the Mises Institute would like to see, with the type of political order that Mises and the entire classical-liberal tradition believed would be most beneficial for mankind.
It would appear that the more liberty we lose, the less people are able to imagine how liberty might work. It is a fascinating thing to behold.
This list could go on and on. But the problem is that the capacity to imagine freedom — the very source of life for civilization and humanity itself — is being eroded in our society and culture. The less freedom we have, the less people are able to imagine what freedom feels like, and therefore the less they are willing to fight for its restoration.
This has profoundly affected the political culture. We’ve lived through regime after regime, since at least the 1930s, in which the word freedom has been a rhetorical principle only, even as each new regime has taken away ever more freedom.
Now we have a president who doesn’t even bother to pay lip service to the idea of freedom. In fact, I don’t think that the idea has occurred to Obama at all. If the idea of freedom has occurred to him, he must have rejected it as dangerous, or unfair, or unequal, or irresponsible, or something along those lines.
To him, and to many Americans, the goal of government is to be an extension of the personal values of those in charge. I saw a speech in which Obama was making a pitch for national service, the ghastly idea that government should steal 2 years of every young person’s life for slave labor and to inculcate loyalty to leviathan, with no concerns about setting back a young person’s professional and personal life.
How did Obama justify his support of this idea? He said that when he was a young man, he learned important values from his period of community service. It helped form him and shape him. It helped him understand the troubles of others and think outside his own narrow experience.
Well, I’m happy for him. But he chose this path voluntarily. It is a gigantic leap to go from personal experience to forcing a vicious national plan on the entire country. His presumption here is really taken from the playbook of the totalitarian state: the father-leader will guide his children-citizens in the paths of righteousness, so that they all will become god like the leader himself.
To me, this comment illustrates one of two things. It could show that Obama is a potential dictator in the mold of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, for the presumptions he puts on exhibit here are just as frightening as any imagined by the worst tyrants in human history. Or, more plausibly, it may be an illustration of Hannah Arendt’s view that totalitarianism is merely an application of the principle of the “banality of evil.”
With this phrase, Arendt meant to draw attention to how people misunderstand the origin and nature of evil regimes. Evil regimes are not always the product of fanatics, paranoids, and sociopaths, though, of course, power breeds fanaticism, paranoia, and sociopathology. Instead, the total state can be built by ordinary people who accept a wrong premise concerning the role of the state in society.
If the role of the state is to ferret out evil thoughts and bad ideas, it must necessarily become totalitarian. If the goal of the state is that all citizens must come to hold the same values as the great leader, whether economic, moral, or cultural, the state must necessarily become totalitarian. If the people are led to believe that scarce resources are best channeled in a direction that producers and consumers would not choose on their own, the result must necessarily be central planning.
On the face of it, many people today do not necessarily reject these premises. No longer is the idea of a state-planned society seen as frightening. What scares people more today is the prospect of a society without a plan, which is to say a society of freedom. But here is the key difference between authority in everyday life — such as that exercised by a parent or a teacher or a pastor or a boss — and the power of the state: the state’s edicts are always and everywhere enforced at the point of a gun.
It is interesting how little we think about that reality — one virtually never hears that truth stated so plainly in a college classroom, for example — but it is the core reality. Everything done by the state is ultimately done by means of aggression, which is to say violence or the threat of violence against the innocent. The total state is really nothing but the continued extension of these statist means throughout every nook and cranny of economic and social life. Thus does the paranoia, megalomania, and fanaticism of the rulers become deadly dangerous to everyone.
It begins in a seemingly small error, a banality. But, with the state, what begins in banality ends in bloodshed.
Let me give another example of the banality of evil. Several decades ago, some crackpots had the idea that mankind’s use of fossil fuels had a warming effect on the weather. Environmentalists were pretty fired up by the notion. So were many politicians. Economists were largely tongue-tied because they had long ago conceded that there are some public goods that the market can’t handle; surely the weather is one of them.
Enough years go by and what do you have? Politicians from all over the world, every last one of them a huckster of some sort only pretending to represent their nations, gathering in a posh resort in Europe to tax the world and plan its weather down to precise temperatures half a century from now.
In the entire history of mankind, there has not been a more preposterous spectacle than this!
I don’t know if it is tragedy or farce that the meeting on global warming came to an end with the politicians racing home to deal with snowstorms and record cold temperatures.
I draw attention to this absurdity to make a more general point. What seems to have escaped the current generation is the notion that was once called freedom. Let me be clear on what I mean by freedom. I mean a social or political condition in which people exercise their own choices concerning what they do with their lives and property. People are permitted to trade and exchange goods and services without impediment or violent interference. They can associate or not associate with anyone of their own choosing. They can arrange their own lives and businesses. They can build, move, innovate, save, invest, and consume on terms that they themselves define.
What will be the results? We cannot predict them, any more than I can know when everyone in this room will wake up tomorrow morning, or what you will have for breakfast. Human choice works this way. There are as many patterns of human choice as there are humans who make choices.
The only real question we should ask is whether the results will be orderly — consistent with peace and prosperity — or chaotic, and thereby at war with human flourishing. The great burden born by the classical liberal tradition, stretching from medieval times to our own, is to make believable the otherwise improbable claim that liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of orderliness.
To be sure, that generation of Americans that seceded from British rule in the late 18th century took the imperative of liberty as a given. They had benefitted from centuries of intellectual work by true liberals who had demonstrated that government does nothing for society but divide and loot people in big and small ways. They had come to believe that the best way to rule a society is not to rule it at all, or, possibly, rule it with the people’s consent in only the most minimal way.
Today, this social order sounds like chaos, not anything we dare try lest we be overrun with terrorists and drug fiends, amidst massive social, economic, and cultural collapse. To me this is very interesting. It is the cultural condition that comes about in the absence of experience with freedom. More precisely, it comes about when people have no notion of the relationship between cause and effect in human affairs.
One might think that it would be enough for most people to log-on to the World Wide Web, browse any major social-networking site or search engine, and gain direct experience with the results of human freedom. No government agency created Facebook and no government agency manages its day-to-day operation. It is the same with Google. Nor did a bureaucratic agency invent the miracle of the iPhone, or the utopian cornucopia of products available at the Walmart down the street.
Meanwhile, look at what the state gives us. The department of motor vehicles. The post office. Spying on our emails and phone calls. Full-body scans at the airport. Restrictions on water use. The court system. Wars. Taxes. Inflation. Business regulations. Public schools. Social Security. The CIA. And another ten thousand failed programs and bureaucracies, the reputation of which is no good no matter who you talk to. Now, one might say, oh sure, the free market gives us the dessert but the government gives us the vegetables to keep us healthy. That view does not account for the horrific reality that more than 100 million people were slaughtered by the state in the 20th century alone, not including its wars.
This is only the most visible cost. As Frédéric Bastiat emphasized, the enormity of the costs of the state can only be discovered in considering its unseen costs: the inventions not brought to market, the businesses not opened, the people whose lives were cut short so that they could not enjoy their full potential, the wealth not used for productive purposes but rather taxed away, the capital accumulation through savings not undertaken because the currency was destroyed and the interest rate held near zero, among an infinitely expandable list of unknowns.
To understand these costs requires intellectual sophistication. To understand the more basic and immediate point that markets work and the state does not, needs less sophistication, but it still requires some degree of understanding of cause and effect. If we lack this understanding, we go through life accepting whatever exists as a given. If there is wealth, there is wealth, and there is nothing else to know. If there is poverty, there is poverty, and we can know no more about it.
It was to address this deep ignorance that the discipline of economics was born in Spain and Italy, the homes of the first industrial revolutions, in the 14th and 15th centuries, and came to the heights of scientific exposition in the 16th century, to be expanded and elaborated upon in the 18th century in England and Germany, in France in the 19th century, finally achieving its fullest presentation in Austria and America in the late-19th and 20th centuries.
And what did economics contribute to human sciences? What was the value that it added? It demonstrated the orderliness of the material world through a careful look at the operation of the price system and the forces that work to organize the production and distribution of scarce goods.
Its main lesson was taught again and again for centuries: government cannot improve on the results of human action achieved through voluntary trade and association. This was its contribution. This was its argument. This was its warning to every would-be social planner: your dreams of domination must be curbed.
In effect, this was a message of freedom, one that inspired revolution after revolution, each of which stemmed from the conviction that humankind would be better off in the absence of rule than in its tyrannical presence. But consider that what had to come before the real revolutions: there had to be this intellectual work that prepared the field of battle, the epic struggle that lasted centuries and continues to this day, between the nation-state and the market economy.
Make no mistake: it is this battle’s outcome that is the most serious obstacle to the establishment and preservation of freedom. The political order in which we live is but an extension of the capacities of our collective cultural imagination. Once we stop imagining freedom, it can vanish, and people won’t even recognize that it is gone. Once it is gone, people can’t imagine that they can or should get it back.
I’m reminded of the experience of an economist associated with the Mises Institute who was invited to Kazakhstan after the fall of the Soviet Union. He was to advise them on a transition to free markets. He talked to officials about privatization and stock markets and monetary reform. He suggested no regulations on business start-ups. The officials were fascinated. They had become convinced of the general case for free enterprise. They understood that socialism means that officials were poor too.
And yet, an objection was raised. If people are permitted to open businesses and factories anywhere, and we close state-run factories, how can the state properly plan where people are going to live? After all, people might be tempted to move to places where there are good-paying jobs and away from places where there are no jobs.
The economist listened to this point and kept waiting for the objection. He nodded his head that this is precisely what people will do. After some time, the government officials became more explicit. They said that they cannot simply step aside and let people move anywhere they want to move. This would mean losing track of the population. It could cause overpopulation in some areas and desolation in others. If the state went along with this idea of free movement, it might as well shut down completely, for it would effectively be relinquishing any and all control over people.
And so, in the end, the officials rejected the idea. The entire economic reform movement foundered on the fear of letting people move — a freedom that most everyone in the United States takes for granted, and which hardly ever gives rise to objection.
Now, we might laugh about this, but consider the problem from the point of view of the state. The whole reason you are in office is control. You are there to manage society. What you really and truly fear is that by relinquishing control of people’s movement, you are effectively turning the whole of society over to the wiles of the mob. All order is lost. All security is gone. People make terrible mistakes with their lives. They blame the government for failing to control them. And then what happens? The regime loses power.
In the end, this is what it always comes down to for the state: the preservation of its own power. Everything it does, it does to secure its power and to forestall the diminution of its power. I submit to you that everything else you hear, in the end, is a cover for that fundamental motive.
And yet, this power requires the cooperation of public culture. The rationales for power must convince the citizens. This is why the state must be alert to the status of public opinion. This is also why the state must always encourage fear among the population for what life would be like in the absence of the state.
The political philosopher who did more than anyone else to make this possible was not Marx nor Keynes nor Strauss nor Rousseau. It was the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who laid out a compelling vision of the nightmare of what life is like in the absence of the state. He described such life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The natural society, he wrote, was a society of conflict and strife, a place in which no one is safe.
He was writing during the English civil war, and his message seemed believable. But, of course, the conflicts in his time were not the result of natural society, but rather over the control of leviathan itself. So his theory of causation was skewed by circumstance, akin to watching a shipwreck and concluding that the natural and universal state of man is drowning.
And yet today, Hobbesianism is the common element of both left and right. To be sure, the fears are different, stemming from different sets of political values. The left warns us that if we don’t have leviathan, our front yards will be flooded from rising oceans, big business moguls will rob us blind, the poor will starve, the masses will be ignorant, and everything we buy will blow up and kill us. The right warns that in the absence of leviathan society will collapse in cesspools of immorality lorded over by swarthy terrorists preaching a heretical religion.
The goal of both the left and right is that we make our political choices based on these fears. It doesn’t matter so much which package of fear you choose; what matters is that you support a state that purports to keep your nightmare from becoming a reality.
Is there an alternative to fear? Here is where matters become a bit more difficult. We must begin again to imagine that freedom itself could work. In order to do this, we must learn economics. We must come to understand history better. We must study the sciences of human action to re-learn what Juan de Mariana, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray N. Rothbard, and the entire liberal tradition understood.
What they knew is the great secret of the ages: society contains within itself the capacity for self-management, and there is nothing that government can do to improve on the results of the voluntary association, exchange, creativity, and choices of every member of the human family.
If you know this lesson, if you believe this lesson, you are part of the great liberal tradition. You are also a threat to the regime, not only the one we live under currently, but every regime all over the world, in every time and place. In fact, the greatest guarantor of liberty is an entire population that is a relentless and daily threat to the regime precisely because they embrace this dream of liberty.
The best and only place to start is with yourself. This is the only person that you can really control in the end. And by believing in freedom yourself, you might have made the biggest contribution to civilization you could possibly make. After that, never miss an opportunity to tell the truth. Sometimes thinking the unthinkable, saying the unsayable, teaching the unteachable, is what makes the difference between bondage and sweet liberty.
The title of this talk is “the Misesian vision.” This was the vision of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. It is the vision of the Mises Institute. It is the vision of every dissident intellectual who dared to stand up to despotism, in every age.
I challenge you to enter into the great struggle of history, and make sure that your days on this earth count for something truly important. It is this struggle that defines our contribution to this world. Freedom is the greatest gift that you can give yourself, and give all of humanity.
January 25, 2010
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former publications editor to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, literary executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.
If you are unfamiliar with Agenda 21, I suggest you find out what it is all about. Start by watching this great interview with Rosa Korie, then read her book. Our civil liberties are rapidly being destroyed, and only by understanding what we are facing, will we ever have a prayer of stopping it.
And here is a high resolution photo of the U.S. Biodiversity Map. If you read, you will see that this map was used in the Senate to stop the bills ratification, but that wasn’t going to stop these lunatic control freaks. They have simply by-passed our national governments using Agenda 21’s International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (“ICLEI”) to make agreements directly with local governments to implement their radical vision of the world. This is about control of people, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE EARTH!
click to enlarge
Great interview with Charlotte Iserbyt. This lady is awesome! Don’t forget to check out her fabulous website http://www.americandeception.com/ which is literally a gold mine of information. And if you would like to read her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, you can read it for free on this site http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/.
Singer died after taking a cocktail of anti-depressant drugs
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, February 13, 2012
The corporate media tells us it will be “six to eight weeks” before we know for sure how Whitney Houston died . By then they hope nobody will be paying attention, because it’s already been reported that the singer was killed by a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs.
The 48-year-old performer was found dead in her bathtub at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California on Saturday.
“An autopsy was completed on Houston Sunday, but “there will be no cause of death at this time because it is pending toxicology reports,” Ed Winter, assistant chief of the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office, told CNN.
“Winter declined to release the coroner’s initial finding of cause of death, saying lab results were expected in six to eight weeks.”
However, TMZ reports that Houstton’s family has already been told by L.A. County Coroner officials that “the singer did not die from drowning, but rather from what appears to be a combination of Xanax and other prescription drugs mixed with alcohol.”
No illegal drugs were found in Houston’s hotel room “but prescription drugs were present,” including “various pill bottles”. Despite talk of alcohol playing a role in her death, “There was no evidence that Whitney was drinking alcohol in the room.”
Houston had “a plethora of sedatives including Lorazepam, Valium, Xanax, and a sleeping medication that was found in her hotel room,” reports Radar Online.
Mainstream news networks have largely avoided discussion of multiple reports of pharmaceutical drugs being the cause of Houston’s death because the establishment is keen to hide the fact that pharmaceutical drugs, particularly psychotropic anti-depressants, kill more people than illegal substances by a factor of 300 per cent.
“Prescription drugs kill over 200,000 Americans every year — even when taken as directed and not abused!,” notes Mike Adams. In comparison, there is no documented case of marijuana ever killing anyone, despite the fact that it is illegal in America.
“Whitney Houston is just one of countless Americans who are victims of Big Pharma, an industry that cares far more about corporate profits than it does about the lives of real people. And today, we have lost yet another iconic American artist whose life was cut short by addiction, prescription drugs and the entire “medication culture” that exists in America today,” writes Adams, pointing out that Houston’s erratic behavior before her death clearly indicated she was suffering from the side-effects of psychiatric drugs, including Xanax, which is known to cause odd behavior and suicidal thoughts.
With the two industries tied at the hip, don’t expect the corporate media to do much to impugn its relationship with the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical boondoggle by reporting the truth about Houston’s cause of death.
Big Pharma spends more money on promotion and advertising than it does on research and development, a huge chunk of which goes to the big news networks, so don’t think for a second the likes of CNN, NBC and CBS will be too eager to make the connection between Houston’s intake of pharmaceutical drugs and her untimely demise.
Watch the video below from Alex Jones in which he explains why the establishment wants to downplay the fact that pharmaceutical drugs killed Whitney Houston.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Health Impact News Editor Comments: We previously reported a story from India where government officials in one location are asking police forces to take action against “persons or groups who campaign against the vaccination drives of the health department.” Here in the United States, many states are moving to get legislation passed to remove vaccination exemptions currently allowed for religious or other medical reasons, making vaccinations mandatory according to government force. In California last year a law was passed that gave the authority to school officials and physicians to vaccinate children with Gardasil without parental approval. The pharmaceutical lobby is the largest and most influential lobby in the U.S., and is working hard to get these laws passed, wielding tremendous influence over government.
In this story by Louis Conte, the father of two sons who have autism and a criminal investigator in Westchester County, New York, we learn about the powerful pro-vaccine lobby’s efforts to censor criticism of vaccines on the Internet and in the mainstream media. Is it only a matter of time before websites like Health Impact News are forced to shut down for exposing the truth of the pharmaceutical companies?
It is becoming apparent that all of the internet activity around vaccines and autism is frustrating those who support the “scientific consensus” that there is no connection between vaccines and autism.
On January 23, Evgeny Morozov wrote an article for Future Tense called “Warning: This Site Contains Conspiracy Theories” which proposes the notion that search engines should label and flag websites that engage in discourse about the potential link between autism and vaccines. Morozov suggests that Google and Bing install a “pop up message” advising readers to “check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds.” Morozov’s support for censorship is particularly ironic given that he has written extensively on how authoritarian regimes have used the internet to further oppression. This article was followed up by Commentary by Dr. Kevin Pho on KevinMD.com in an article titled “Should Google censor anti-vaccine claims?” Dr. Pho described Morozov’s article as “fascinating.”
Is censorship really “fascinating”? History doesn’t usually record it that way. In fact, censorship is usually accompanied by oppression – as Morozov notes. I suspect that those who have suffered oppression – and censorship – do not sit around wondering how fascinating the experience was.
That the concept of censorship is so comfortably proposed by seemingly main stream people is of profound concern to me. It seems that those who support the vaccine program have convinced themselves that the program is above discussion and public discourse. Vaccines are all good and unquestionably safe. Those who make them, administer them and supply them are all beyond reproach. Bringing up the radioactive ‘autism’ thing really throws them into a tizzy. Not only is discussion of vaccines and autism found to be against “scientific consensus” but it is now supposed to be described as a “fringe theory.” If you talk about this issue, you are a member of a lunatic fringe. You are out there in the woods, looking for Bigfoot.
But are descriptions of vaccine injury associated with autism really crazy? Should discussion of vaccine injury and autism be verboten?
The vaccine program is a complex, multi-layered government and corporate program. It is a big part of Public Health Policy. As someone who works for a local government, it is my belief that Public Health Policy issues involve the public. That means conversation – what we used to call ‘public discourse.’ But with this program, no one is supposed to ask questions and the lecturers are above answering them. In fact, it has become fashionable to remove those who pose tough questions from lectures about how to promote the vaccine program. Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine industry spokes person who has made significant income from vaccines, has had a young journalist named Jake Crosby removed from two of his lectures and has called Mr. Crosby a “stalker.” Apparently, asking hard question gets you labeled a criminal and shown the door.
Interesting how censorship is immediately followed by oppression, isn’t it?
Back in May, you might recall that Mary Holland, Robert Krakow, Lisa Colin and I published a paper in the Pace Environmental Law Review called Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury (http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/2/0). The paper showed that the US Government has been compensating children within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) for over twenty years for vaccine injuries that involved brain damage and seizures. And quite remarkably, many of these children also suffered from the behavioral disorder that DSM-IV – but maybe not DSM-V – calls “autism.”
Isn’t it interesting that the US Government established a compensation program to deal with vaccine injuries? Some public discourse must have prompted Congress to do this back in the 1980’s. And in this government program, the Department of Health and Human Services has quietly acknowledged that vaccine injuries sometimes “include” autism and “autism-like symptoms.”
It seems that over the past twenty four years that when Dr. Geoffrey Evans, Director of the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, and his staff sit down and screen all the claims filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and look into individual cases, the “fringe belief” isn’t so fringe anymore. The cold, hard fact is that vaccine injury is indelibly linked to autism not because of the internet or because of conspiracy theories but because of the reality of vaccine injury. We found that there were a significant number of children compensated for vaccine injury who also had autism. This had been going for years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield, blamed by Dr. Offit for the creating the controversy, ever appeared on the scene. I find it “fascinating” that Dr. Evans didn’t think that this information should be disclosed during the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, the multi-year proceeding aggregating over 5,000 claims of vaccine-induced autism. Maybe Dr. Evans feared censorship and oppression.
All those compensated cases speak loudly and clearly to plausibility and against vaccine-induced autism being a “fringe belief.” And all of those vaccine injured children with autism have family members who talk about what happened to their children.
Interestingly, we found that Unanswered Questions was censored as well. The article was given to many, many mainstream news outlets. Many ignored the peer-reviewed article, but we also received feedback that indicated that reporters and journalists were instructed not to report on the findings. As one highly placed journalist told me, “I am stunned by what you found and what is going on here…but I am not allowed to cover this story.”
And now I read and article in the Vancouver Courier that Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic of the University of British Columbia (UBC) are beginning to draw fire from Dr. Offit for their recent work. Their November 2011 article in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry describes correlations and possible causal links between increased exposures to aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and increased neurological problems. Dr. Offit has informed a reporter that the peer-reviewed paper “should never have been published.” He then went on to vent his spleen about Dr. Wakefield and the MMR controversy. The message was clear: the vaccine program is above question. And if you are inclined to ask questions, remember Dr. Wakefield.
Green College of UBC planned to have a lecture series on vaccine safety. But it seems that the criticism from Dr. Offit and his crew is having its usual chilling effect. The lecture series appears to be in jeopardy and may not run. Public discourse be damned. The vaccine program must remain above inquiry.
And now it seems that those who cloak themselves in “scientific consensus ” want censorship brought to the internet as well. They will try to sell it as a reasonable measure at first – nothing more obnoxious than a pop-up statement. But that is just the beginning. And history tells us that it will not be too long before censorship’s next of kin – oppression – is on display. That is what those with “scientific consensus” really want. They want contrary research retracted, rebellious doctors sanctioned, and those who ask uncomfortable questions silenced. They want websites shut down and investigative journalists run out of town. They even want to end the epidemic by un-diagnosing the thousands that they finally got “better at diagnosing” over the past twenty years. They want all discourse about vaccine injury to end. And they will claim that “scientific consensus” permits them to do so.
But there is a problem. And it is a big one.
It has to do with the fact that people – parents – are observing their children getting sick and regressing after vaccination. Some of these children go on to develop autism. These experiences are real, important, and hugely worthy of investigation. And family members will talk about what they experience no matter what the censors do.
Last year some Young men came knocking at my door after the tenth snowfall of the winter and asked if they could make a few dollars shoveling my driveway. I wanted to ask them where they had been for blizzards one through nine but I censored myself and happily agreed to have them do the job instead of me. While they were out there, one of my sons with autism went out and played in the snow and began playing with them as well. The young men were great with my son and I made a point of thanking them for being such gentlemen and good neighbors.
Then one of them said, “I have a cousin with autism so I know what this is all about…You know my aunt swears that a vaccine made him that way.”
Try censoring that.
Louis Conte is the father of triplet boys, two with autism. He has worked in law enforcement for over twenty-seven years and has been responsible for many important Criminal Justice programs in Westchester County, New York. Mr. Conte is an EBCALA Board member.
Read the Full Story Here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/the-death-of-public-discourse-and-the-heavy-snow-of-plausibility.html
How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children
by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland J.D.