- 1938 Chemist Albert Hoffman searching for a compound that would stimulate blood flow
- 25th ergot derivative–lysergic acid diethylamide which became LSD 25
- let the compound touch his unloved hand and experienced the worlds first acid trip
- decided to experiment on himself and swallowed 250 micro grams–very potent. (had a bad trip)
- Warner Stoll (Hoffman’s partner) published a report on LSD in 1949 or around thereabouts
- came to the attention of the CIA–wanted a mind control drug
- Project Bluebird was the combined project to create this mind control drug
- The next year it was reformed as project Artichoke
- 1953 MK Ultra was sanctioned by CIA to perform further studies on the public and fellow agents with LSD.
- Agents literally just pranking each other by slipping each other LSD and watching them acid trip
- George Hunter Wight was a pretty evil person
- Moved base of operations to San Francisco. operation Midnight climax. Hired prostitutes and got them to go to bars and dose innocent civilians (men) with LSD. At night they partied with LSD and prostitutes. This went on for 8 years
- (these are MK Ultra projects)
- He had a hell of a lot of fun “lie kill cheat still rape and pillage” with the sanction of the government/CIA
- Loretta Bilder kept prepubescent children high on LSD for weeks at a time because they wanted to study “how children communicated”
- creepiest doctor was Deu Cameron who was obsessed with schitzophrenia
- frequently ordered experimental lobotomies on patients with only mild anesthetic so he could document their reactions
- Linda McDonald was referred to him for mild depression and mild back pain
- 25 years old. married and with 5 children. diagnosed with acute schitzophrenia
- transferred to “sleep room” from 86 days
- administered 102 electroshock treatments in that time
- treatment reduced her to an infantile state. no memory. even had to be toilet trained again
- I HATE DEU CAMERON WITH A FLAMING PASSION AND WOULD LIKE TO RIP HIM TO SHREDS IF HE WERE STILL ALIVE
Discrimination vs. Discrimination
Discrimination is defined as “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.” This is not a bad thing. When you order something off of the menu in a restaurant, you are discriminating between foods. However, in modern culture, the word “discrimination” is taken to mean unjust treatment of certain people based on their lifestyle, religion, or appearance. Unfortunately, these two definitions can be easily confused.
Let’s start with a classic example of perceived racism. Your car has broken down and you need a ride. There are two people about to get into cars and you must ask one for a ride home. The first person is a young, clean-shaven, white man in a suit. The second is a tattooed, pierced, black teen whose pants sag to his knees. Most people would obviously choose the white man in the suit. Why? The easy answer might seem to be “because he is white” but this is not the case at all. If we reverse the skin colors of the men, most everyone would immediately choose the black man in the suit. The preference of which man to approach has nothing to do with skin color but how the men present themselves. This demonstrates how perceived racism commonly has nothing to do with natural appearance but how the individuals act. A specific set of features also indicates a certain culture and it is this culture someone may find unsavory, not the color of the person’s skin.
Now let’s introduce a bit of perceived sexual discrimination with a second example. Imagine an average-sized man and an average-sized woman who are both applying to the job of firefighter, where there is only one open position. Unless he’s completely incompetent, the man would generally be the preferred choice. Why? When comparing a male and female’s bodies, the difference in size and muscle mass are obvious. Unless a man is considerably smaller than average, he will have an easier time carrying a man out of a burning building than a woman will. The decision to hire the man is not sexist, it’s purely based on a clinical observation of who would be more suited for the job. Specific jobs, such as firefighting, which requires strength and endurance, require people with specific physical aspects. Men, women, whites, blacks, smaller or larger people, disabled, fully functioning…etc.
Discrimination, meaning “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.” is good. Without it the firefighter who rescues you may be unable to carry you out of the burning building. Before immediately assuming someone is a racist jerk, take a moment to understand the difference between the two definitions and see if there is a reason they are catching a ride with one man or the other.
Minimum wage :(
Dad was listening to a podcast about minimum wage in the car. Here’s the gist:
Everyone thinks minimum wage is great. Why wouldn’t it be? The higher the minimum wage, the more money everyone gets paid and everyone is happy. Rigggghhhhhhtttt?
The very presence of minimum wage directly impacts employers. If you need to hire 3 employees to keep your business going but can only afford to pay each an amount under the minimum wage, your business will fail. Not only does this effect the business owner, but the employees as well. Now where 3 employees might have been hired, no spaces are available for anyone to work. It’s as simple as that.
Now for any objections…? “Those employees need minimum wage to get enough money to survive.” Minimum wage jobs such as fast food are not meant for any employee to spend their entire life working at. Maybe while attending college, but the entire goal of college is to transfer to a much more financially stable job.
There’s more to the argument but I’m tired and I can’t think. Besides, no one is going to ever read this.
- 1900s Everyone believed Opium was a huge problem
- 1980 Dec 28. Washington Post ran “Jimmy’s World” by Janet Cooke
- Really incited a lot of people to hate and fear opium more than ever
- 8 year old kid in the ghetto addicted to opium since 4 years old
- Mother’s live-in-lover selled opium as a business
- Mayor of WA D.C. ordered search of city to find and save this kid
- 6 reporters ordered to go find other kids like him because he certainly couldn’t be the only child opium addict out there
- She won Pulitzer prize for the story but Jimmy was never found and Janet couldn’t remember where he was so Pulitzer prize was taken away
- Actually were child opium addicts though
- Opium-based soothing-syrups for children
- Women employed to take care of dozen+ children and kept them quiet by feeding them opium syrup
- Not uncommon for mothers to also feed them opium syrup to get a good nights sleep
- Only at end of 19th century when people really realized how addictive it was
- Infanticide through opium overdoses by poor women was also not uncommon
- “Baby Farms” where women were paid to adopt a child but then they killed the kid so they didn’t have to deal with them
- Infanticide also with a bastard child because another baby was another mouth to feed
DRUGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Recently, I’v started listening to a series of lectures on Mises.org that discusses drugs throughout history. From the two or three lectures that I’ve heard so far, one thing is blatantly clear: social media and public impressions have done far more to affect the way drugs are treated in our society than the medical facts of these drugs have. When we look at marijuana for instance, we can see that there is a huge benefit to using this drug in medicine, but the general hatred of the drug was enough to make it illegal in the U.S. without any real consideration of the drug’s uses and effects on the populace. Since marijuana’s legalization, the only noticeable difference in society are several marijuana shops opening up downtown. No huge increase of drug-related deaths or hospitalizations reported in the news. If the legalization of marijuana has proved that it never should have been made illegal in the first place, what can we say about other drugs? The general opinion of the public should not be enough to decide whether a doctor wants to use a certain drug to treat his patients or if a person wants to ruin their own life. The main deciding factor whether to leave these people alone or intervene in their lives and businesses is if the social media can rile up enough people with biased reports and untrue facts about something the general population is ignorant about.
Can the Government Keep Us Safe?
The second amendment states that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that all US citizens have the right to own guns. This is one of the rights that we possess as humans, whether or not a government exists. Some people (those who vote to increase gun restrictions) are under the impression that the government will be able to keep us completely safe and it completely justified in removing our rights in order to do so.
Are they right? Continue reading
Are Markets Sexist?
First, we’re gonna talk about the gender-wage-gap, probably the most common example of sexism. All you have to do is look at how this “evidence” was collected to see that this is not in fact true. The numbers were calculated using median wages of men and women as a whole, with no categories for different professions. Of course we must also factor in that different careers and life choices appeal to men vs. women, so naturally one gender is bound to earn a higher wage than the other. Continue reading
“How Much Policing Do We Really Need?”
Why have confrontations between the police and the common citizen become so lethal? Racism, poor training, or availability of firearms to civilians? Well it’s really none of these in the long run. Without profit and loss in the policing industry, the police cannot know if they are using their resources effectively. Since the people are not there to tell police what problems they need to be dealt with the most, bureaucrats and politicians step in and tell the police “what the people want or need.”
Economist Bruce Benson (Florida) found that when police focus on enforcing the abolition of drugs, they turn their attention away from defending the people and their property, and crime in those areas shoots up.
Turning again to the economic side of the equation, we can see that because the police are not using the free market system to get paid, they simply can’t tell which is greater; the value of their services, or the resources used up to
What about police immunity in court? Some people argue in favor that when cops are not held to the same laws as the rest of us, they will not hesitate to use the force they need to in order to properly perform their jobs. I think that this simply encourages police to use excessive force instead, making the problem even worse.
Since police do not use the free market system and therefore have no obligation to satisfy the consumer, we should not be surprised when they act in their or the state’s best interests instead of the people’s interests who it is their job to protect and serve. Continue reading
“Is Forced Military Service Good for the Economy?”
Military conscription is generally pushed as “honorable, patriotic,” and even occasionally “good for the economy.” Elizabeth Braw of the Atlantic Council claims in the Financial Times that the state has every right to force the young men and women of the country into the military because it “helps their careers” and “develops general skills useful “in any sector, such as adaptation, managing and social skills.”
In 1973 Murray Rothbard wrote about how conscription is slavery because it forces total compliance in the way you move, act, and even think. Not to mention the distinct possibility of death or maiming while serving their sentence, or the guarantee of severe punishment if you attempt to dodge this form of slavery.
Braw centered her argument on the misconception that the government is the best entity to decide how young men should spend their early lives. What if these young people wish to become doctors, or scientists, or plumbers? Braw basically says that they will be useless to the world as whatever they wish to become and would much better benefit the economy in the military. However, simple logic shows that if they were to earn a living through one of these careers then people do need them and are willing to pay for their services and are grateful for the many years of their life they took to learn the skills necessary to perform their job. The skills they will emerge with from the military with do effectively nothing as a doctor, or a scientist, or a plumber as long as the individual lacks training in their chosen field of work.
Through simple reasoning, we can clearly see that Elizabeth Braw’s claim that military conscription benefits the economy is bogus and we can confidently say, “Forced Military Service is NOT Good for the Economy.” Continue reading