Via The Brownstone Institute,

According to newly released emails, the United States Intelligence Community, led by the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, held regular meetings with Dr. Ralph Baric, one of America’s leading coronavirus experts, since at least 2015. 

Senator Rand Paul’s office has worked for years to obtain the documents. 

Baric has been accused of engineering the Covid-19 virus in his lab at the University of North Carolina, but he has never had to testify about his role in the pandemic despite his well-documented collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

The newly released emails reveal that the CIA hoped to discuss “Coronavirus evolution and possible natural human adaptation with Baric” and that Baric held quarterly meetings with members of the Intelligence Community. 

These emails are just the latest additions to the suspicious amalgamation of facts implicating the US Intelligence Community’s role in the origins of the pandemic, as discussed in The Covid Response at Five Years.

A very brief overview of the timeline suggests that the CIA and the Intelligence Community are implicated in the creation of the virus, a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and censorship to evade any public scrutiny for their role in the pandemic. 

2015: The Intelligence Community held quarterly meetings with Dr. Ralph Baric and discussed “possible human adaptation” to coronavirus evolution. 

2019-2020: The CIA had a spy working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology doing “both offensive and defensive work” with pathogens, according to Seymour Hersh. That asset reports in early 2020 that there was a laboratory accident that resulted in the infection of a researcher. 

March 18, 2020: The Department of Homeland Security replaced Health and Human Services as the lead Federal Agency responding to Covid, as explained in depth in Debbie Lerman’s The Deep State Goes Viral. 

Spring 2020: The CIA offered bribes to scientists to bury their findings refuting the “proximal origin” theory advanced by Dr. Anthony Fauci, according to a whistleblower. The House Oversight Committee explains: “According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.” Then, however, the “six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position.”

2020: Dr. Fauci began holding secret meetings at CIA headquarters “without a record of entry” in order to “influence its Covid-19 origins investigation,” according to a whistleblower. “He knew what was going on…He was covering his ass and he was trying to do it with the Intel community,” the whistleblower told Congress.”

2021: Scientists in the Department of Defense compiled significant evidence suggesting Covid emerged from a lab leak, but President Biden’s Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, banned them from presenting their evidence or participating in a discussion on the origins of the virus.

2021: CISA, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, implemented a program known as “switchboarding,” where officials dictated to Big Tech platforms what content is permissible or prohibited speech. 

2022: The Department of Homeland Security announced it will establish a “Disinformation Governance Board.” The Ministry of Truth is only discontinued when the absurdity of its chief censor, Nina Jankowicz, receives sufficient blowback from the public.

What exactly was the play here?

A populist impulse has been alive in the American electorate since the end of the Cold War. A growing popular demand on the left and right has been for a government that serves the people and not some globalist, bureaucratized, and militarized scheme that only benefits the ruling class. 

In 2015, Donald Trump, a consummate outsider to the ruling elites, was ascending in political stature in ways that no one expected. He was saying outrageous things on stage – such as that the Iraq war was a disaster – and people loved it. 

The establishment’s choice, Jeb Bush, was wiped out early in the primaries. This was not about Trump personally, however; it was about the traditional demand in these circles to control the controllers.

Since the assassination of JFK, this has always been the way, always justified in the public interest. Trump was not their choice. 

The real interest has been the consolidation and expansion of power of a rogue Intelligence Community, headed by the CIA.

Tapping Baric’s expertise was part of a deliberate strategy to increase that dominance through bioweapons. 

It seems perhaps crazy to imagine that there was a playbook for maintaining control by the old guard and that the pandemic option was among them. But perhaps it was. After all, Anthony Fauci frequently warned of a coming pandemic, and intelligence worked with universities and corporations for years and on multiple occasions to game out pandemic exercises (Event 201 and Crimson Contagion). 

What we have here are new breadcrumbs pointing to a genuine coup attempt, one that grew as each stage in the deployment failed, culminating in relentless media campaigns, lawfare, and even assassination attempts. The newest evidence further reinforces the existence of a ruling class willing to engage in sadistic policies that compared with the worst of the last years of the Roman Empire. 

Of course, this was not just about politics in the US. Populist movements had come alive the world over, from Europe to the UK to Brazil. Fully 194 countries were locked down over several weeks, with the claim that the problem would be fixed with universal human separation followed by injection of a compliant population. The scenario being built here through these releases is nothing short of terrifying. 

Where are the investigations, hearings, commissions, and courts? At the very least, and in any case, Baric and members of the Intelligence Community must testify under oath about their role in gain-of-function research, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the cover-up that began in 2020. 

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

For years, Washington assumed that China’s outbound investment flowed mainly into developing economies hungry for infrastructure money. But as scrutiny tightens across the West, it’s becoming clear that Beijing’s financial reach extended far deeper into wealthy nations – and far earlier – than most policymakers realized.

One early warning came in 2016, when Jeff Stein, a veteran journalist covering U.S. intelligence agencies, received an unusual tip: Wright USA, a small insurer that specialized in providing liability coverage for FBI and CIA personnel, had quietly been acquired the year before by Fosun Group, a Chinese conglomerate with reported ties to Beijing’s leadership. “Someone with direct knowledge called me up and said, ‘Do you know that the insurance company that insures intelligence personnel is owned by the Chinese?’” Stein recalls. “I was astonished.”

The concern was immediate and obvious. Wright USA held personal information on some of the most sensitive employees in the federal government. The question in Washington became not what the Chinese buyer intended, but who might ultimately gain access to the data. Newly released records reviewed by the BBC indicate that Chinese state banks helped finance the acquisition, routing a $1.2 billion loan through the Cayman Islands to enable Fosun’s purchase.

Though the deal violated no U.S. laws, it triggered alarm. Stein’s story in Newsweek soon prompted a rare inquiry by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Treasury-led interagency panel responsible for policing foreign ownership risks. Within months, Wright USA was sold back to American owners. Neither Fosun nor Starr Wright USA, its new parent, responded to requests for comment.

High-level intelligence officials say the episode was among the cases that pushed the first Trump administration in 2018 to significantly tighten U.S. investment screening – part of a broader shift as the U.S. began rethinking a two-decade-old presumption that Chinese capital posed few national-security risks.

New research now suggests the Wright USA case was not an anomaly, but one instance in a vast global pattern. AidData, a research lab at William & Mary, has completed what it calls the first comprehensive tally of China’s state-backed investments abroad. Its findings, shared in advance with the BBC, show that Beijing has spent $2.1 trillion overseas since 2000 – roughly half in developing countries and half in advanced economies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia.

“For many years, we assumed China’s money flows were going to developing countries,” said Brad Parks, AidData’s executive director. “It came as a great surprise when we realized hundreds of billions were flowing into wealthy markets, happening right underneath our noses.”

China’s ability to project financial power abroad is tied to the enormous scale of its domestic banking system – now larger than those of the U.S., Europe, and Japan combined. Beijing exercises direct control over interest rates and credit allocation, giving it tools few governments possess. “This is only possible with very strict capital controls, which no other country could sustain,” said Victor Shih, director of the 21st Century China Center at the University of California, San Diego.

Many of the investments mapped by AidData appear commercial in nature. But others align with China’s long-running industrial strategy, including the now-muted – but still operative – “Made in China 2025” program, which aims to dominate sectors such as robotics, electric vehicles, and semiconductors. 

Western governments have since moved aggressively to strengthen screening mechanisms over inbound capital. In the U.K., the U.S., and the Netherlands, regulators have derailed or unwound deals over fears that Chinese buyers could access strategically sensitive technologies. The Dutch government recently intervened in the operations of Nexperia, a Chinese-owned semiconductor firm, citing concerns that chip technologies could be transferred to its parent company. The move effectively split Nexperia’s Dutch operations from its China-based manufacturing arm – an extraordinary step in a country long known for economic openness.

But policymakers also warn against overcorrection. “There’s a danger of making it seem as if China is this monolith,” said Xiaoxue Martin, a research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague. “Most companies, especially private ones, just want to make money. They don’t want the negative reception they’re getting in Europe.”

Beijing rejects claims that its overseas investments are tools of statecraft. “Chinese companies… contribute actively to local economic growth, social development and job creation,” the Chinese embassy in London told the BBC, adding that they strictly follow local laws.

Still, the scale of the financing behind many transactions raises questions about where commercial intent ends and strategic interest begins. What Western officials now see, Parks argues, is a coordinated push. “At first, they thought these were individual initiatives from Chinese companies,” he said. “What they’ve learned is that Beijing’s party-state is behind the scenes writing the checks.”

(h/t Capital.news)

Authored by Michael Matulef via The Mises Institute,

Every major economic illusion begins with the corruption of a word. Inflation once meant popularly what it still means in truth—the artificial expansion of money and credit. But, over time, it has been redefined to describe its consequence rather than its cause.

This deliberate inversion of language serves a political purpose: it shifts blame from those who create money to those who merely spend it, transforming an act of monetary fraud into a mere statistical “phenomenon.”

The result is profound.

By redefining inflation, governments have obscured its nature, economists have lost its meaning, and citizens have come to accept their gradual impoverishment as an unavoidable fact of life.

The Austrian tradition—more than any other—seeks to restore that lost clarity: to call things by their proper names, and to remind us that inflation is not a symptom of capitalism’s failure, but of government’s assault on money itself.

The Nature of Inflation

Inflation, as understood by the Austrian School, is not a general rise in prices but an artificial expansion of the money supply. Everything else flows from that root cause. Prices do not rise uniformly, nor do they rise spontaneously. There are supply and demand reasons why prices can rise. However, prices largely rise at present because additional monetary units are injected into the economy, altering the structure of production and distorting economic calculation from the ground up.

As Ludwig von Mises insisted in Economic Freedom and Interventionism,

There is nowadays a very reprehensible, even dangerous, semantic confusion that makes it extremely difficult for the non-expert to grasp the true state of affairs. Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country [the United States], means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term “inflation” to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages. There is no longer any word available to signify the phenomenon that has been, up to now, called inflation. It follows that nobody cares about inflation in the traditional sense of the term. As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Those who pretend to fight inflation are in fact only fighting what is the inevitable consequence of inflation, rising prices. Their ventures are doomed to failure because they do not attack the root of the evil.

Only later, as political expediency demanded it, was the definition corrupted to mean “a general rise in prices.” That semantic sleight of hand allowed governments to claim innocence while committing the very act they had redefined away.

Murray Rothbard brought Mises’s insight to its logical conclusion in The Case Against the Fed:

The culprit solely responsible for inflation, the Federal Reserve, is continually engaged in raising a hue-and-cry about “inflation,” for which virtually everyone else in society seems to be responsible. What we are seeing is the old ploy by the robber who starts shouting “Stop, thief!” and runs down the street pointing ahead at others. We begin to see why it has always been important for the Fed, and for other Central Banks, to invest themselves with an aura of solemnity and mystery. For, if the public knew what was going on, if it was able to rip open the curtain covering the inscrutable Wizard of Oz, it would soon discover that the Fed, far from being the indispensable solution to the problem of inflation, is itself the heart and cause of the problem.

Every expansion, Rothbard argued, constitutes a form of legalized counterfeiting that “robs all holders of money,” redistributing wealth from savers and producers to those nearest the new money’s points of entry. Prices adjust unevenly because new money does not enter all pockets at once. It flows—first to borrowers, banks, and state contractors—before dispersing through the broader economy. This “Cantillon effect” is central to the Austrian understanding: new money changes prices, which beget other chances, from injection points; inflation benefits those who receive new money first and penalizes those who receive it last.

As Jörg Guido Hülsmann demonstrates in How Inflation Destroys Civilization, inflation springs “from a violation of the fundamental rules of society,” transforming what should be honest economic exchange into systematic deception. Inflation is not merely a monetary distortion but a moral hazard that corrupts the language of economic communication itself. When fiat inflation “turns moral hazard and irresponsibility into an institution,” it destroys the pricing system’s ability to convey truth. In such an environment, where “everything is what it is called, then it is difficult to explain the difference between truth and lie,” prices cease to function as reliable signals coordinating economic decisions. Inflation “tempts people to lie about their products, and perennial inflation encourages the habit of routine lies,” spreading this corruption “like a cancer over the rest of the economy.” The result is a society where the very medium of economic coordination has been falsified at its source, leaving entrepreneurs to navigate by systematically-distorted signals that make sustainable economic calculation impossible.

But the damage extends far beyond falsified price signals into the moral fabric of civilization itself. Inflation “constantly reduces the purchasing power of money,” and “the consequence is despair and the eradication of moral and social standards.” Through debt-based policies, “Western governments have pushed their citizens into a state of financial dependency unknown to any previous generation.” This dependency corrodes character:

Towering debts are incompatible with financial self-reliance and thus they tend to weaken self-reliance also in all other spheres. The debt-ridden individual eventually adopts the habit of turning to others for help, rather than maturing into an economic and moral anchor of his family, and of his wider community. Wishful thinking and submissiveness replace soberness and independent judgment.

Worse still, “Inflation makes society materialistic. More and more people strive for money income at the expense of personal happiness.” What emerges is a culture where “fiat inflation leaves a characteristic cultural and spiritual stain on human society”—a stain that transforms independent citizens into dependent subjects, erodes the standards that sustain civilization, and ultimately reveals inflation as “a powerhouse of social, economic, cultural, and spiritual destruction.”

Inflation as Lived Experience

Inflation’s true theater is not the spreadsheet but the home. The harm is intimate—felt not in economic aggregates but in the quiet recalibrations of daily life. Inflation acts as the cruelest and most imprudent tax, for it strikes invisibly, eroding the purchasing power of the very people least equipped to hedge against it. It destroys the link between effort and reward, between prudence and security.

Inflation punishes thrift and rewards debt. Those who save in money lose; those who borrow in money gain, at least temporarily. The saver’s virtue becomes folly, and the speculator’s recklessness becomes advantageous. Over time, entire societies shift their time preferences—impatience replaces diligence, consumption replaces production and saving. Once the money signal is corrupted, society loses its sense of future orientation. Inflation de-civilizes by teaching people to live for the present. This is civilizational decay.

In daily life, this manifests gradually. The middle-class family that once dined out weekly now eats at home. The young worker saving for a house discovers the dream receding each year. The retiree, promised security through “stable” investments, realizes that the stability was priced in nominal, not real, terms. Everyone adjusts—economically, psychologically, morally. The harm is slow, individualized, and cumulative.

The Austrian economist sees inflation not as a statistic but as a story of distortion—a story of moral inversion, misallocation, and progressive social demoralization. The calamity is not merely higher prices but confused values and distorted choices. Inflation is, in essence, a lie against time and value, and, like all lies, it eventually collapses under its own contradictions.

Conclusion: Sound Money as Civilization’s Foundation

The path forward is not mysterious; it is a choice. Societies that wish to recover from inflation’s moral and economic wreckage must begin where the corruption began: with money itself. The Austrian remedy demands the restoration of honest money—money that cannot be inflated at will, that holds its value across time, and that reconnects effort with reward.

To call for sound money is to demand the reestablishment of truth as the foundation of economic life. Inflation is first and foremost a lie—a lie embedded in the very medium we use to communicate value. When that medium is corrupted, the moral architecture of society collapses with it. Restoring sound money means restoring the conditions under which civilization can flourish: where savings accumulate rather than decay, where long-term planning replaces short-term desperation, and where currency becomes an ally of virtue rather than an engine of vice.

The inflation that impoverishes and demoralizes continues, not by economic necessity, but by political will and public acquiescence. History offers no comfort to those who ignore economic law indefinitely. To choose sound money is to choose civilization over decay. The Austrian School offers no utopian promises, only stark clarity: sound money is the precondition for a free and civilized society, and its absence is the precondition for barbarism.