Connect with us

The Second Order Effects Of Bitcoin: Digitization, Decentralization And Deflation

With digitized money and a deflationary economy, Bitcoin will usher in second order effects that will reshape the nature of societies.
The post The Second Order Effects Of Bitcoin: Digitization, Decentralization And Deflation appeared first on Bitcoin…

Published

on

Some inventions are so profound that their second order effects reshape the very structures of societies. 

The term general purpose technologies (GPTs) is used to describe innovations like electricity, the steam engine and the computer. The paradigm shifts made possible by these inventions are often not initially understood, and can take decades to reach mass adoption. But once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no going back to a world without them. Electricity was invented in the 1870s, but electric motors were not adopted in factories until 30 years later. GPTs can also become the bases for new innovations, and their spillover effects can redesign entire economic and social systems.

Bitcoin is one such general purpose technology. Now in its second decade, it has evolved from cypherpunk roots to become an emergent monetary asset. As a digital free market money with a predetermined supply, the invention of bitcoin will have lasting impacts beyond our time. 

The first users of the printing press could not immediately envision how a free press would rearchitect the nature of society. Yet the freedom of information reshaped the power structures of Europe, and distributed power away from the hands of religious leaders and royalty. Just like the printing press denationalized the states monopoly on information, Bitcoin denationalizes the state’s monopoly on money. While the future is difficult to predict in micro events, we can study Bitcoin’s design to identify macro themes that are likely to emerge from its adoption.

Many of the trends mentioned here were seeded by prior events. Bitcoin provides an opt-out at the right place and the right time. In practicality, the timeline of these themes will overlap, with multiple forces of change working together. Collectively, they will result in second- and third-order effects that will broadly represent a future of digitization, decentralization and deflation.

The Digitization Of Money

Money was already on its way to digitization, when along came bitcoin. Digitization will spur the following broad changes in our societies:

  • Cashlessness
  • A new age of peer-to-peer commerce
  • Fractional asset ownership
  • Banking more people with fewer bankers

A Cashless Society

We’ve been migrating away from physical cash for the last two decades, but until recently, even the digital forms of money (such as electronic money transfers) had to be settled by offline entities, using legacy banking agreements. This changed with the invention of Bitcoin, and will become prominent in the 2020s. 

Bitcoin has made it possible to have a currency that is both issued and settled online. The ability to use blockchain technology to issue and settle money has set off a race for public and private digital monies, which will expedite our move to a cashless society. By 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank will be capable of facilitating central bank digital currency (CBDC) transactions, and countries will begin phasing out physical cash and coins.

The 2020s will also coincide with the coming of age for Gen Z, whose members will have grown up their entire lives knowing about the existence of Bitcoin. The presence of cryptocurrencies to Gen Z will be similar to the presence of the internet for Millennials — the technology was already here when they grew up. Globally, Gen Z is already the most populous generation, representing 32 percent of the global population. And money to this generation is digitally native. 

The adoption of cashless societies will differ by regions and by incentives. Autocratic countries will want to mandate digital currencies as this empowers their surveillance capabilities. Citizens of developing countries will see digital money as an opportunity to leapfrog their current financial infrastructure. In the 2000s, countries like Nigeria bypassed the need to build a network of bank branches and skipped straight to mobile payments. We may see history repeating itself in the next decade.

Tokenized Assets, Fractional Ownership And A New Age Of Peer-To-Peer Commerce

Money isn’t the only asset that can be digitized on a blockchain. Eventually, other assets like real estate will also be digitized. For most of human history, people owned properties and traded in decentralized marketplaces. The rise of tokenized assets may return us to a digital version of the barter system. The ability to exchange value on a peer-to-peer basis will re-architect how we see trade. 

The sharing economy of the 2010s enabled us to share temporary use of assets like homes and cars. The next marketplaces will enable an ownership economy, where assets can be co-owned and traded in a digital form. 

A byproduct of asset tokenization will be the rise of fractional ownership, which will become the basis for entirely new business models. In particular, this will lower the barriers to investing, unleashing a new sharing economy and reframing our views of whole asset ownership. Stock splits will become a thing of the past, as users will be able to trade in fractions without worrying about a whole share of a business. One potential business model may be to provide services in exchange for tokenized ownership, rather than being paid for by a local currency. 

The value accrual in the early 2000s sharing economy were centralized trusted parties who facilitated transactions, but Web 3.0 will result in new decentralized marketplaces. These new marketplaces will enable the exchange of value much like social media enabled the exchange of information. This theme will follow the macro pattern of digitization and decentralization. 

Banking More People With Fewer Bankers

Instagram did to Kodak what Bitcoin will do to banking products. Web 2.0 made it possible to share digital photos, and Web 3.0 will make it possible to freely store and exchange digital money. 

As an open-source financial asset, Bitcoin will re-architect the walls of our monetary systems. The 20th century monetary system was architected so that central banks had current account relationships with commercial banks, and commercial banks had relationships with end consumers. In this economic model, central banks acted as wholesale creators of money, and commercial banks bore the costs and profits of storing and distributing money. Bitcoin changes this monetary architecture. The beginning of the 21st century modernized the user interface of money with websites and mobile apps, but kept in place the institutional structures of the pre-digital era. Bitcoin changes this structure, first by digitizing money, and then also by replacing the need for local central banks. 

One of the byproducts of Bitcoin adoption is that nation states will also roll out their own blockchain-based digital currencies, making it possible for governments to directly transact with citizens. If COVID-19 were to repeat as COVID-29, governments would be able to airdrop direct relief to citizens without needing banks. The proliferation of digital currencies will erode the traditional payments and foreign currency exchange revenue for banks. 

Bitcoin will also be an alternative to traditional savings products like savings accounts and GIC-approved investments, and store-of-value products like gold (if bitcoin were to reach a total valuation of $8 trillion, it would be worth the same as the gold market) and fiat-denominated bonds (which is a $128 trillion market). In particular, by offering an alternative to government-issued bonds, bitcoin will not only represent an alternative to banking products, but also change the relationship between money and the nation state. 

Decentralization And The Separation Of Money And State

This is where Bitcoin’s Austrian Economic roots will become more prominent. As early as 2012, the European Central Bank credited Bitcoin’s economic philosophies to be inspired by Austrian Economist and Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek. Hayek was a leading proponent of the denationalization of money, and a promoter of free competition between different types of money. If the nation state is the epitome of central authorities, Bitcoin will be the flag bearer for decentralization. The themes that play out with decentralization will be as follows:

  • Unbundling money from offline borders
  • Constraining the power of governments
  • The rise of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)

Unbundling Money From Offline Borders

Digital money by nature is transnational. Under a physical money world, borders can help protect against cross-currency flight risks. This changes when currencies are digitized, as their demand will come from their network effects rather than local offline laws.  

Digitization will also unleash a new wave of currency competition by unbundling “the functions served by money (store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account).” There is a potential future where bitcoin fulfills the store-of-value function of money, while the price of items (unit-of-account function) could still be quoted in local terms.

As switching costs of currencies get eroded, citizens of underdeveloped countries will see benefits of switching out of weak currencies for stronger currencies like the dollar, euro or bitcoin. The themes of digital dollarization and bitcoinization will eliminate local government monopolies on money, which will constrain the fiscal power of these governments in the longer term.

Constraining The Power Of Governments

Defund the military? This might be one of the long-term byproducts of the separation of money and state. One of Bitcoin’s second order effects will be privacy currencies which are harder to tax. Another one of Bitcoin’s second order effects will be to erode the value proposition for government bonds, which will reduce a key government funding mechanism. Together, these forces will constrain the power of the nation state. 

Governments will try to curb the use of private money, and privacy will be one of the biggest social debates around Bitcoin regulation. Even if Bitcoin is never fully private, Bitcoin has opened up the path for anonymous digital stores of value, which will challenge the business model of the offshore banking industry and tax havens. 

Here is where Bitcoin’s libertarian influence will become more prominent. Taking away a government’s ability to print money will reduce the size of government spending programs. Many government social programs will need to be reprioritized, and governments will have to decide whether military spending should remain the largest portion of their budgets. 

The popularity of decentralized digital currencies will bleed into online communities and social networks, giving rise to new types of economically-connected internet communities. 

The Rise Of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)

Money will be a part of social networks in the future, and there will be economically-connected successors to what Facebook groups are today. Digital money will be used as an economic infrastructure to create new types of digital organizations where people don’t have to be co-located. These new decentralized organizations will reshape the very nature of firms, by programming ownership and governance rules on a blockchain.

The popularity of GoFundMe has already proven that the internet can be an effective tool for crowdfunding. Programmable money will combine digital money and smart contracts to create new types of firms which live natively on the internet. While earlier versions of crowdfunding focused on raising money, DAOs will enable a new type of digital co-ownership. Future versions of GoFundMe will be organizations that behave like digital cooperatives, which are funded and owned by the crowd. If people want to support a humanitarian cause, they will be able to pool together assets and spin up an organization with a transparent treasury and where funding disbursement rules are programmed as part of a digital constitution. 

We may see money get bundled as part of social networks, with new incentive structures to reward contributors to the network. A for-profit DAO might be a collective where people pool together funds to co-own smart machines, and share the profits from their operation. There will be entire new sets of laws created around regulating such organizations, as they will operate on the internet and not in offline jurisdictions. Over the long-term horizon, a DAO with a large enough network effect may even compete with nation states for influence, which may create a form of digital states.

From An Inflationary To A Deflationary Society

Technology is inherently deflationary. During both the first and the second industrial revolutions, the world experienced deflation as increased technological outputs improved productivity, improving our purchasing power in the process. As we move into an age of technological abundance, we will once again see the return of deflation.

By nature, technological innovation should make things more efficient and cheaper, yet the price of goods and assets rises because our inflationary currencies lose value every year. This is where Bitcoin’s deflationary design will have lasting social changes to our economic behaviors:

  • Changing our outlook on earnings and wages
  • Changing our impulses toward debt and consumption

Changing Our Outlook On Earnings And Wages

The rise of inflationary money since the 1970s has benefited rich capital owners, while the labor class has had to work more hours to make ends meet. This is likely to have a dangerous tipping point, where currency debasement meets job automation. In these times, Bitcoin’s deflationary design will become more prevalent.

Bitcoin’s deflationary design will enable a world where savings aren’t automatically debased, and where people can take advantage of technological innovation. This may even have an impact on family structures by removing the need to have dual income households, which could have a longer-term impact on family structures. 

In a deflationary society with a decreasing cost of living, we might see the end of the 20th century minimum wage debates. In an inflationary environment, governments have to enact new laws to increase minimum wages in order for workers to keep up with a rising cost of living. By contrast, when savings are denominated in a deflationary currency like bitcoin, they will go up in value, leading to a paradigm shift in how we view savings and consumption.

Changing Our Impulses Toward Debt And Consumption

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product  (GFDEGDQ188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Inflationary currencies promote debt and consumption by devaluing the cost of debt servicing, and by disincentivizing cash savings. When all money is digitized, we will have a much easier time spending it. Much like the internet made us addicted to information and screen times, the digitization of money will enable our worst impulsive spending habits. In an era of one-click purchases where drones provide real-time delivery, we will need monetary incentives to protect us from our impulses. Bitcoin’s deflationary design will become an important part of the saver’s toolkit. 

In a world of digital tokens, people might put their savings in bitcoin, and keep a day-to-day spending account in a local currency. In this world, bitcoin might serve as a savings account and local currencies might serve as checking accounts. Switching out of bitcoin to an inflationary currency would be akin to liquidating a store of value, making us mindful of the opportunity costs for consumption.

The move to a deflationary society will also have social effects by changing how we think of finance, and how we think of instant gratification. By incentivizing delayed gratification, we might see the demise of “buy now, pay later” business models. We will even need to adjust our societal prosperity measures like GDP, so that a nation’s wealth is not measured by the amount of consumer and business spending.  

Conclusion

The next decades will prove that bitcoin is more than a digital cash. For bitcoin to be adopted as a global general purpose technology, we will need to solve technological issues like rural internet accessibility, and thorny social issues like financial privacy. There are likely to be intensified debates around wealth concentration and the role of government oversight. 

As with other general purpose technologies, the second order impacts of Bitcoin will play out over a period of several decades. The genie is now out of the bottle, and there’s no going back. We’ve started by digitizing commerce. Soon, Bitcoin will decentralize power structures, and eventually, rewire our time preferences for a world that embraces technological deflation.

This is a guest post by Ammar Naseer. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

The post The Second Order Effects Of Bitcoin: Digitization, Decentralization And Deflation appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending