The Post-Partisan Emporium

The Economy of Permanent Emergency, Part I This may be the most vital article you read about Covid. Italian writer/philosopher, Fabio Vighi, provides a quasi-total account of why the ‘pandemic’ was launched. It’s not about health, but wealth. John Waters Due to the unusual length of this article, and Substack’s limitations on the permitted wordcount of newsletters, it has been necessary to divide it into two parts. Part I is in text form below, and there is a link to Part II at the end. Coming up on three decades ago, in the early years of writing my weekly  column for the  Irish Times , I fell into writing on a theme that might have been described as a critique of contemporary economics. I was not an ‘expert’: my sole formal qualification in economics was a pass in a Leaving Cert paper that, being doubtful if I had enough subjects to scrape through, I took at the last minute on the basis that, having plumped for Latin rather than Economics, I had sat with one ear cocked through numero

Hiding the Bodies Diana West Thank you, Art Moore of World Net Daily, for reporting on the tag-team treachery of Fauci and Walensky after a US Senator finally, if inadequately, confronted them both with the VAERS covid “vaccine” body count in  “Fauci, Walensky dodge when asked about number of vaccine deaths.” Before I discuss the substance of Moore’s story, I’d like to point out why it is likely to remain a news media exclusive forever: The lethality of the covid “vaccine” is the last thing media and political and money elites want us “useless eaters” to understand. The mantra they have pressed on us is  “safe and effective,”  which I think of as the new “Sieg Heil.” We’re supposed to repeat after them, while sucking on the same old puff-blah,  “Fauci, Walensky testify while omicron prompts many possible changes”  (Associated Press); or the same old melodrama,  “Criticized by Senators, U.S. Health Officials Defend Omicron Response”  (NYT); or, worst of all, the “battle” of Fauci vs. Pa

What the recent Rasmussen survey tells us about ourselves Its a bit frightening Eileen Natuzzi, MD, MPH On January 5th, 2022 the  Rasmussen Report  conducted a telephone survey of 1,016 voters. The survey used a Likert 5 point agreement scale that allowed respondents to give progressive positive and negative answers to the posed questions. The Likert scale is a commonly employed psychometric scale used in many public health questionnaires. The scale assumes the strength and intensity of an attitude is linear ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Telephone polls can be tricky because not many people answer their phone when a strange number appears on it. So their might be some bias to this survey instrument. An  article on the Rasmussen survey  results summarizes the Democratic identified voter support for harsh measures against the unvaccinated. I must say I was a bit shocked at the percentage of Democratic respondents who supported fining (55%), home confinement (59%), con