Suddenly, the man universally beloved by nearly everyone for his sterling integrity, his devotion to God and family, his indominable patriotism and deep devotion to his country, celebrated, honored and admired, championed from coast-to-coast for his legendary quick wit and adroit speaking ability, is dead – the shocking result of a devastating tragedy which left the nation devastated with deep grief and wrenching uncertainty towards the future. Will the great heroic youth movement he created survive? Will America survive the chaotic loss of his bizarre passing?

Keeper of the Flame is a 1943 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) drama directed by George Cukor, and starring Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. I consider it one of their best films together, and one of my favorites from this golden age of cinema.

The screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart (noted Hollywood Communist Party member) is adapted from the novel Keeper of the Flame by I. A. R. Wylie. Stewart considered the script to be the finest moment of his entire career, feeling vindicated by the assignment as he believed that Hollywood had punished him for years for his Stalinist political views.

The film was screened for the Office of War Information’s Bureau of Motion Pictures on December 2, 1942, where it was disapproved of by the Bureau’s chief, Lowell Mellett. Keeper of the Flame premiered to a poor reception at Radio City Music Hall on Thursday, March 18, 1943. MGM head Louis B. Mayer stormed out of the cinema, enraged by his having encouraged the making of a film which equated wealth with fascism. Republican members of Congress complained about the film’s obviously leftist politics, and demanded that Will H. Hays, President of the Motion Picture Production Code, establish motion picture industry guidelines for propaganda. Cukor himself was highly dissatisfied by the film and considered it one of his poorest efforts.

Nonetheless, today the film is seen more positively, with one critic concluding that Keeper of the Flame is “truly provocative in that it was one of Hollywood’s few forays into imagining the possibility of homegrown American Fascism and the crucial damage which can be done to individual rights when inhumane and tyrannical ideas sweep a society through a charismatic leader.”

Keeper of the Flame is not Donald Trump’s favorite movie.

There was, however, actual fascist intrigue and subversive plots against the government afoot during this time.

The Plot to Seize the White House, by Jules Archer, tells the shocking true story of how United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler was the savior of our Republic from a fascist plot by Wall Street plutocratic militarists in the early 1930s.

Author Jules Archer is featured in The History Channel documentary below, The Plot To Overthrow FDR, a concise summary of his exceptional book.

Smedley Butler was the author of the timeless, incisive and devastatingly powerful indictment of mass slaughter and war profiteering, War is a Racket.

The post Keeper of the Flame appeared first on LewRockwell.

Close Ties Between Neo-Nazi Junta and Drug Cartels Uncover US/NATO Hypocrisy

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

On September 5, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense (DoD) to the Department of War (DoW). As one of the justifications for this change, Trump pointed out that the founders of the United States established the DoW as such to “win wars, inspiring awe and confidence in our Nation’s military, and ensuring freedom and prosperity for all Americans”. He also claimed that the US supposedly “won the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II”. These highly controversial claims can easily be challenged by simple historical facts. The Anglo-American War of 1812 ended in a status quo ante bellum, at best. Namely, the British military took and burned Washington DC, including the White House, Capitol Hill and other government buildings.

As for WWI and WWII, the very idea that the US military “won” the two bloodiest conflicts in human history is beyond ridiculous. If anything, Russia contributed far more, particularly during WWII, when approximately 80% of all Axis forces were destroyed on the Eastern Front. However, this fact is almost entirely sidelined in the American public discourse, to say nothing of Trump’s rather limited understanding of history, military science or essentially anything outside of his scope of interests.

He insists that the name DoW was chosen to “signal our strength and resolve to the world” and that “‘Department of War’, more than the current ‘Department of Defense’, ensures peace through strength, as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend”.

Trump also added that “this name sharpens the Department’s focus on our own national interest and our adversaries’ focus on our willingness and availability to wage war to secure what is ours”. The notion of America “waging war to secure what is ours” is precisely what worries all sovereign countries on the planet. Namely, Washington DC almost always arbitrarily determines the “ownership” of whatever it points its finger at.

The plutocrats, kleptocrats, warmongers and war criminals running the American government have a vested interest in instigating instability, wars, death and destruction all across the planet, whether directly or through proxies. The DoD’s role in this never changed, nor can we expect it will now that it has become the DoW. However, this change may be more than mere symbolism.

Namely, despite all the talk about “peace” and even ambitions to get the so-called “Nobel Peace Prize” (politically charged, tainted and discredited long ago), Trump’s actions speak louder than words. The attack on Iran mere months after taking office demonstrates just how meaningful “peace” is to his administration. Not to mention the promise that he would “immediately end” the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. In fact, Trump hasn’t kept many (if not most) of the promises he made to his electorate, whether it’s the infamous Epstein files, gun control, “no new wars”, etc. This is without even considering Trump’s criticism of the Pentagon prior to his first term, when he pledged to make the US military “far stronger for far less”, clearly referring to its unnecessarily enormous budget.

However, Trump’s stance changed dramatically after he gained power. The Pentagon’s official budget is projected to reach a trillion dollars precisely during his presidency and is expected to continue growing afterwards. The much-needed reforms Trump promised never came. On the contrary, the DoW is effectively a cash cow for the aforementioned plutocrats, kleptocrats, warmongers and war criminals running the US government. If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, they should check how many audits the Pentagon passed in the last several years and decades (or ever). That’s right, it’s exactly zero. In fact, the US Constitution stipulates that the military budget shouldn’t be paid at all because of this. In a recent article, Ellen Brown, an attorney and founder of the Public Banking Institute, brilliantly analyzed this.

She warned that “the US federal debt has now passed $37 trillion and is growing at the rate of $1 trillion every five months”, while the interest alone exceeds $1 trillion annually. Still, this doesn’t prevent the US government from allocating nearly half of the discretionary budget to the Pentagon. Worse yet, Brown noted that the Pentagon “failed its seventh financial audit in 2024, with 63% of its $4.1 trillion in assets — approximately $2.58 trillion — untracked” and warned that the DoW failed to account for $21 trillion in spending from 1998 to 2015. With over $4.1 trillion in assets and at least $4.3 trillion in liabilities (e.g., personnel costs, pensions, logistics, etc), the Pentagon oversees nearly 5,000 sites worldwide (which include military bases, logistics hubs, and similar infrastructure and facilities).

As Ellen Brown rightfully points out, all this is done with little to no oversight. Why would anyone want to hide such a mind-boggling amount of money and assets from public scrutiny unless the funds are being embezzled (or used for some other sinister purpose)? Why didn’t Trump address this issue during either of his two terms?

Forming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in cooperation with controversial billionaire Elon Musk was presented as a way to improve budgetary oversight. However, apart from scrutinizing the infamous USAID, the DOGE turned out to be a red herring. Namely, despite the repugnant nature of its activities, the USAID, which will certainly not be missed by anyone except neoliberal extremists, was primarily dissolved as part of an internal political struggle.

This was one of the major reasons Trump and Musk had a falling out, with the latter leaving the DOGE and effectively turning on the new US administration, criticizing it for failure to keep its numerous promises. However, Washington DC wouldn’t budge, continuing its controversial budgetary practices.

In the next several months, Trump became increasingly aggressive, culminating with the aforementioned attack on Iran. This belligerence hasn’t subsided in the slightest. On the contrary, the US is now seriously contemplating a direct confrontation with Venezuela, based on a false pretext that its President Nicolas Maduro is supposedly “running a narco cartel”. This is a potential “Noriega 2.0” moment for the US, with a strong possibility the Pentagon could launch at least limited long-range strikes on Caracas.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

The post Close Ties Between Neo-Nazi Junta and Drug Cartels Uncover US/NATO Hypocrisy appeared first on LewRockwell.

‘Pushing People into a Really Bad System Will End Really Badly’

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

The federal takeover of Washington, D.C., rightfully attracted extensive media coverage, but an executive order called “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” quietly issued on July 24th, received remarkably little attention. Perhaps it didn’t make a splash because it wasn’t specifically about policing (or, for that matter, National Guarding), but more generally about how we should treat people who already exist on the outermost fringes of society, human beings who have long been reduced to labels like “addict” or “homeless.”

Indeed, the Trump administration is counting on us to renounce those living on the streets, while struggling with their mental health or the cost of housing (or both). And if history is any guide, that may be exactly what most of us do. While the current moment may feel shocking in so many ways, the president’s order to end what he’s labeled “disorder” represents a further development of norms that have been in place for all too long. They are also norms that we have the power to change.

Identifying a very real crisis, the president’s July 24th executive order noted that “the number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.” The order went on to state that the majority of those who are unhoused have a substance use disorder, with two-thirds reporting that they have used hard drugs at some point in their lives. What followed was the administration’s solution: “Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings… will restore public order.” Precisely which institutions was unclear.

One thing we know is that the use of substances is often connected to past trauma or current hardship, including oppression and poverty. Regardless of that reality, not just the president but all too many of us tend to believe that people who use drugs are undeserving of our compassion or support. In 2021, a national survey found that seven of every 10 Americans believed that those who use drugs problematically are “outcasts” or “non-community members.” (And yes, those were the terms used.)

The president’s executive order fuses drug use and homelessness into a single issue without revealing that homelessness can cause or exacerbate substance use disorder — because people use drugs to cope with privation. As addiction expert Gabor Maté has said, “Don’t ask why the addiction, ask why the pain.” Much like those of us who reach for wine or social media in order to escape, when people who are unhoused use drugs, they are usually searching for a way to make life tolerable. At the same time, they come to be regarded by their peers as non-community members, making it so much less likely that this nation will fight the president on his plans to round them up and erase them from our world entirely.

Meanwhile, many of us with homes never pause to consider our common habit of avoiding unhoused people in every possible way. We cross the street, shift our gaze, anything to avoid the briefest glimpse of their humanity — perhaps terrified to see ourselves in them. Here’s a thought, though: if you don’t want to acquiesce to the president’s way of doing things, might it not finally be time to make eye contact with those neighbors of ours who are homeless? Might it not be time to acknowledge their humanity and, in doing so, recover some of our own?

“Arbitrary and Prolonged Detention”

The Los Angeles nonprofit L.A. Más helps residents build security through collective economic power and home ownership. As Helen Leung, its executive director, put it recently: “Families who’ve been in their neighborhoods for generations are getting priced out. Vendors who work multiple jobs are sleeping in their cars. Kids have classroom friends disappear mid-semester because rent went up again.” She noted that immigrants and working-class households in particular are experiencing acute displacement pressure, which ultimately pushes some to become houseless — and now they find themselves in the crosshairs of the president’s July executive order.

That order proposes the vast expansion of a practice that has been around for a very long time. In recent years, in fact, in states across this country, there has been an uptick in involuntary commitment, a trade term for the forced institutionalization of people who are unwell — or, now, simply unhoused.

Elected officials of all political stripes, including the current president, have claimed that involuntary commitment is an evidence-based way to treat mental illnesses, including addiction. Research does show that, in certain cases, involuntary commitment can be beneficial. But in all too many cases, it’s both ineffective and inhumane. A recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the institutionalization of individuals who were involuntarily hospitalized in “judgment call cases” — meaning cases where one physician might recommend hospitalization, while another would not — nearly doubled the risk of death by suicide or overdose. It also nearly doubled the likelihood of that person later being charged with a violent crime, perhaps because such institutionalization disrupted employment, subjecting people to still more dire economic circumstances. (Again, don’t ask why the addiction, ask why the pain.) Even a recent essay in The New York Times advocating forced treatment conceded that it must be well funded and thoughtfully carried out — conditions that are virtually certain to be unmet in the current climate.

In other words, evidence suggests that rounding up masses of unwell people and institutionalizing them will do anything but benefit public safety, while endangering the individuals who are locked up. On-the-ground data also indicates that, even before Donald Trump focused on that tactic, such commitment was unequally applied, with Black and Hispanic people more likely than White people to be institutionalized against their will.

“We’re not operating with an optimal treatment system, mandatory or voluntary,” according to Regina LaBelle, director of the Center on Addiction Policy at Georgetown University and the former acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. “We’re starting from a really bad system. And so pushing people into a really bad system will end really badly.”

In response to the president’s executive order, the American Bar Association published a statement saying that it raises grave constitutional and civil rights issues and “paves the way for arbitrary and prolonged detention.”

Housing Is a Human Right

A response to the president’s executive order, published in the Psychiatric Times, a journal for psychiatry professionals, noted that it “invokes fear of people with psychiatric illnesses, talks of indiscriminate incarceration of people who have not committed a crime, as well as collection and sharing of sensitive health information with law enforcement, and yet proposes no actual solutions.”

Unfortunately, the president and his crew undoubtedly do regard the involuntary commitment of unhoused people as an “actual solution.” Indeed, many people who have homes or apartments feel unhappy at the sight of human beings living on the streets of their neighborhood and want something done about it. But the underlying problem isn’t that people live on the street or use substances in public in order to tolerate despair. As Helen Leung put it, “When someone loses their housing, it’s not because they need to be institutionalized — it’s because we’ve allowed housing to become a commodity instead of a human right.”

“What works best is making sure that we have affordable housing for people,” says LaBelle. New research out of Philadelphia, for instance, found that a program of cash assistance for housing costs more than halved the odds of participants becoming homeless.

But our prevailing housing system — in which the purpose is less to provide shelter than to generate profits for those who own real estate — has resulted in rents or costs that are beyond reach for increasing numbers of Americans. And as if such a state of affairs weren’t bad enough, President Trump now plans to make “alternative” investment assets, including real estate, available to anyone with a 401(k). If he succeeds in doing so, far more people will compete to own real estate for the purposes of turning a profit, which will undoubtedly raise real estate prices yet more, driving rents higher still.

Notably, his July 24th executive order provides law enforcement with the vague instruction to institutionalize people who “cannot care for themselves,” which could result in a kind of real estate roulette. In essence, those who lack the cash to pay for housing at market rates — no matter how high those rates rise — could be deemed unable to care for themselves, and therefore would become eligible to be rounded up and taken… where?

Very Much Precedented

On one matter there is widespread agreement: There’s already a distinct shortage of mental health services, especially for those who can’t pay for them.

“Our current system does not provide for long-term institutionalization,” noted the Psychiatric Times in its response to the president’s executive order, which itself does nothing to expand the inpatient capacity of treatment facilities or increase funding for mental health services. The administration actually slashed funding for such programs this spring and has approved cuts to Medicaid, a program that currently funds 24% of all mental-health and substance-use care in the United States.

So where will people be taken? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proposed rural camps for addiction recovery, but that (controversial) policy would require substantial new funding, rather than cuts, to healthcare. The president and Congress do seem to have an appetite for increasing funding for military and enforcement programs. The hastily constructed immigration detention facility in Florida known as “Alligator Alcatraz” offers a nightmarish example of how this administration pursues the development of new carceral space.

Already, immigrants are being rounded up and institutionalized, a practice likely to be expanded to still more of our neighbors. While all of this may feel unprecedented, it’s all too precedented. This nation has a long history of institutionalizing people who have not committed a crime, including Indigenous people and those with mental health struggles. It’s easy to blame Trump for all that’s now happening, and he certainly bears enormous responsibility, but he’s not responsible for everything.

He is not, for example, responsible for the longstanding and pervasive stigma attached to people who are unhoused or mentally unwell or both, which has pushed all too many of us in the wealthiest nation on earth to live in isolation and poverty and even to perish. It’s easy to blame Trump, but far harder to engage in self-reflection: How have I participated in the dehumanization of unhoused people or those who use drugs? Do I have the capacity to recognize the humanity in everyone without exception?

ICE (Like Stigma) Now Operates in the Shadows

Perhaps it seems that acknowledging the humanity of those who have so long been dehumanized is far too little and too subtle to make a difference now. And it’s true that we need much more than that, including strong collective action to create housing that people can afford and that’s accessible to those who have experienced addiction and criminalization. But it’s also true that nonjudgmental support from peers makes a difference in the lives of those who are struggling, raising the odds that they may heal and go on to live fruitful and connected lives.

In the past half-year of Donald Trump’s second term as president, raids by masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have become a fixture of American life. ICE now operates in the shadows — and that’s how stigma works, too. Stigma toward people who use drugs or who live without homes is a corrosive force that makes it acceptable to withhold compassion, care, and connection from certain of our neighbors. But unlike forces equipped with military-grade tactical gear, stigma can be overcome by any individual who chooses to witness and affirm the humanity of all our neighbors. And in our present American world, doing so is surely a revolutionary act.

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post ‘Pushing People into a Really Bad System Will End Really Badly’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Brief History of the 21st Century

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

“We are continuing this policy of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy”

– Osama bin Laden

In some ways it seems this century just started. In others it feels like the last one ended a lifetime ago. To more than 40% of the global population, it did.

About 3.4B people are under age 25. They never knew a world without the Internet or cell phones, “binge watching” or social media; where “text” wasn’t a verb, a garden hose supplied our sports drink, an electronic device wasn’t a permanent appendage, World Series games were played during the day, and arriving passengers could be met at the gate.

When asked in 1972 to assess the impact of the French Revolution, Zhou Enlai said it was “too soon to tell.” That attribution is probably apocryphal, but it makes a point.

The new millennium is still marinating. We’ll be gone long before it’s done. But while it simmers let’s step back from the stove, and review the stew from a disinterested distance.

One-Way Dead-End Street

It can be argued that when the century turned, America was at its apogee. The US was the world’s undisputed power. Public and private finances were deteriorating, but debt remained manageable.

Politicians were corrupt, but mostly coherent. The government butted into places it didn’t belong, yet at least pretended not to be at war with the world…or against us.

Americans generally got along, race was becoming an afterthought, things were relatively affordable, people found humor instead of taking offense, and politics hadn’t poisoned everything. We could laugh at each other… and at ourselves.

A quarter the way thru, the Twenty-First century is riding down a one-way dead-end street. As it weaves and careens, we pull it over, shine a light thru the window, and wonder what it has to say for itself.

It best be careful. Anything it utters can and will be used against it. There’s not much that won’t come across as more of a confession than a boast.

Like its predecessor, if this century were smart it’d take the Fifth. But it better do so quick, before that prerogative is ripped away. All the same, let’s put the last two and a half decades in the dock.

The Day Everything Changed

There was some debate about when the millennium started. Was it the first day of 2000, or of 2001? I’d argue it was neither.

Like most siblings, decades and eras have common characteristics but different birthdays. What we think of as “the 1930s” began on October 29, 1929, the ‘40s on December 7, 1941, the ‘60s on November 22, 1963, and the 1990s when the Wall came down.

As last century was launched when the Maine sank in Havana harbor, this one turned when the Twin Towers were toppled.

That was the day everything changed. The remnants of the U.S. Constitution went in the shredder, and the world we’d known was gone for good. That’s obvious in retrospect, but it was also clear at the time.

To anyone paying attention, the attacks were shocking, but not surprising. After decades of U.S. government mayhem in Muslim lands, a violent response was bound to occur.

Rather than be introspective and wonder what mischief could’ve provoked such malice, our “leaders” did what they always do: committed more of it. They doubled-down by stoking fear, intervening everywhere, and making everything worse.

Instead of blaming their own covert coups and military misadventures, government officials told us “the terrorists hated us for our freedom”. So to keep us safe, they stripped more of them away.

They invaded countries they’d already wanted to conquer, cracked down on the one they already ruled, and counterfeited trillions of new currency so we could pay for their “mistakes”.

This is precisely what Osama bin Laden wanted them to do. The 9/11 attacks were meant to provoke an overreaction, akin to how the bin Laden-funded Mujahideen (which a couple US administrations supported) made Afghanistan the Soviets’ “Vietnam”.

To quote veteran intelligence reporter James Bamford from Scott Horton’s indispensable book, Enough Already:

“[bin Laden’s partner] Ayman al-Zawahiri argued that al Qaeda should bring the war to the ‘distant enemy’ [to] provoke the Americans to strike back and ‘personally wage the battle against Muslims’. It was that battle that bin Laden and Zawahiri wanted to spark [with the 9/11 attacks]. As they made clear, … they believed the U.S. and Israel had been waging war against Muslims for decades. Now their hope was to draw Americans into a desert Vietnam.”

To borrow a phrase President Bush inadvertently made infamous: “Mission Accomplished!”

If anything, bin Laden got more than he could’ve wished. Since the Terror Wars started, Islamic radicals have proliferated, American puppet regimes have destabilized, Israel is ostracized, and U.S. debt has more doubled each decade.

The pre-packaged “Patriot” Act came off the shelf. This abomination gave the U.S. government the (unconstitutional) tools it needed to wage perpetual war. It would be fought on two fronts.

The Department of “Defense” would battle nebulous menaces abroad, and a creepy new Department of “Homeland Security” would tackle “terror” at home. The main target was the usual suspects:

Us.

Naturally, we’d be entitled to less liberty. Imbecilic “terror alerts”, color codes, asbestos scares, underwear bombs, deadly shoes, water bottle bans, and toothpaste confiscation frightened anxious Americans into forgoing their freedom.

Airports became giant screening depots, where identification became mandatory and passengers were groped or nuked to board a plane. Frisking, scanning, clear bags, and assorted acts of security kabuki also infested concerts, ballgames, and other popular events.

For Our Protection

As always when an “emergency” recedes, the State retained the illegal powers it grabbed based on fear it fomented. Despite early pockets of resistance (and welcome whistleblowers such as Ed Snowden), “terror” screening has evolved into ubiquitous surveillance Americans blithely accept.

The clamp-down was quick, and compliance coerced from the get-go… at home and abroad. Whoever resisted was suspected of supporting (or belonging on) a lengthening list of elusive “enemies.” As President Bush put it with typical nuance, “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists. There’s no in between.”

He had no advice for anyone who couldn’t tell the difference.

This dopey dichotomy is a familiar tactic when degenerate empires try to consolidate control. Neutrality is an option they can’t abide. “Antagonist” or “ally” is fine. Bankers, weapons manufacturers, and other connected industries make money from both.

But neutrals don’t fuel the gravy train. That’s why they must pick a side. Either buy US weapons… or be bombed by them. The Empire can’t abide its global satraps trying to mind their own business.

Wanting to be left alone is frowned upon in the “homeland” too. For our protection (why else?), officials urged us to snitch on each other. If we saw something, we were supposed to say something. After all, can’t be too safe!

Throughout the century, this would be a recurring theme. Our rulers urged us to fear everything (especially each other), while doing what “authorities” said so they could protect us.

Naturally, freedom and privacy were intolerable threats. Like a driver ditching his weed when the cops give chase, the Fourth Amendment went out the window.

Americans’ bank accounts were scrutinized, transactions limited, identification digitized, communication monitored, travel tracked, and property confiscated.

To defeat “the terrorists”, the US government assumed all Americans were criminals. They may not be safe; but they’d certainly be secure.

More Cigarettes

Having escaped what remained of its leash and corralled its ostensible “owners”, the war machine was free to run wild.

After Americans were attacked by a pack of Shi’ite Saudi militants, the U.S. government did what we’d expect them to do: invaded countries other than the place the attackers were from… including one ruled by an enemy of the jihadists who struck the States.

For twenty years, that pattern has repeated. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Somalia, the U.S. government invaded, bombed, or overthrew regimes that posed no threat to any American state. In many cases, it funded every side of conflicts it helped create, fought groups it previously formed or supported, and often backed its avowed enemies… including al Qaeda and ISIS.

Since most Americans are unaware these wars are raging (and few complain when they find out), the ice cream cone keeps licking itself. Martial lawlessness has become second nature.

“Kill lists”, drone strikes, aerial attacks, proxy wars, missile launches, and the bombing of tiny boats off Venezuela are undertaken with the indifference of choosing the color of a Model-T.

The incumbent administration hardly matters. All of them kowtow to the military complex, bend a knee to the Israeli lobby, and fund several sides in these endless wars.

“Terror” is an ideal enemy… a tactic and emotion that can never be defeated, yet a great excuse to topple recalcitrant regimes. No one really knows what the word means (which is intentional), so the government instinctively applies the label to anyone it doesn’t like.

The “Terror Wars” were (and are) among the most catastrophic atrocities the U.S. government ever committed. The ramifications will roil the world for years to come. They cost trillions of dollars, created millions of corpses, unleashed hordes of refugees, and (most lucratively) fresh enemies for the regime to fight.

Those of us who’d warned that relentless bombing, invasions, meddling, and coups might provoke retaliation were ridiculed (or worse) for not advocating adequate “response” to this predictable attack.

It was like being criticized for not having a cure for cancer after spending years urging the patient not to smoke. To fight the tumor, tobacco companies’ only answer was to prescribe more cigarettes.

Predictable Phenomenon

As usually happens when governments make a mess, the people who cause the calamity are entrusted to craft a solution.

Rather than keep silent, cover their faces, and find a monastery to do penance, the culprits blame everyone else… then use their failure to justify more power for themselves.

And it works! Almost without fail, government gets more resources after catastrophes it creates, then makes new ones and lies about how they were caused.

The “War on Terror” was a glaring example of this predictable phenomenon. As we’ll see in upcoming installments, it wouldn’t be the last.

This article was originally published on Premium Insights.

The post A Brief History of the 21st Century appeared first on LewRockwell.

Top 20 Books That LRC Fans Are Reading This Week

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2025, please remember to DONATE TODAY!

The post Top 20 Books That LRC Fans Are Reading This Week appeared first on LewRockwell.

Stops Foreign Spending, Funding Illegals, and Obeys the Constitution!

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

As an Economist and student of the Constitution, I can guarantee that the title is absolute fact. Not part of it, but all of it. We have the best Constitution in the world that is totally ignored by a mostly-corrupt Blood- Sucking Parasitic Congress operating as a mostly Criminal Enterprise.

We can get an instant start on prosperity by halting foreign expenditures of $428.4 Billion and more. This money is a criminal waste, it kills millions, destroys entire countries and makes the world hate us for justifiable reasons. We spend $ 150.7 Billion on welfare for Illegal Invaders which is Constitutional Treason. Add this to the previous $428.4 Billion and you have $579.1 Billion to immediately spend on returning the American Dream to the people, who could then afford babies, if they want them, and most other things. It’s called prosperity.

Many will take strong exception to terminating Foreign Aid and Troops overseas, but they have no proper Justification for their opinion.

All foreign aid and overseas deployment of troops is without merit or justification that benefits the American people; it actually makes people hate us.. We have reciprocal treaties to defend Europe and they to defend us. We are fools because Europe can’t defend us, nor can anyone invade us because of the Atlantic and Pacific.

The only people who benefit from our foreign expenses are the Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC), Bureaucrats of the Administrative State and, of course, Congress who get bribes and kickbacks.

In simple terms, Members of Congress routinely violate their Solemn Oath of Office by voting the food out of the mouth of Americans. Specifically, Congress Funds Foreign Aid, Troops overseas, Wars for profit of the PSRRC, Welfare for illegal Invaders (Treason!), Welfare for Communists in Blue cities, all payments to states, and more. Not a penny of these expenditures is legal or justified. An honest federal law enforcement agency would put a stop to this criminality and Treason.

It is pretty much accepted by most serious writers that the PSRRC, Jewish Lobby and its Media controls our government, all of it. Trump could not have been elected without their support. He is paying for their support in spades. It is not anti-Semitic to abhor Israel’s Genocide and our government’s funding of it. Even if Israel was doing right, it would be wrong to support them or any other foreign government. It is the opinion of many that Israel is digging its own grave.

You can’t blame Trump; his support of Israel was only way to be elected and he did prevent a Second Civil War by his election. He also knows that Israel has the best Assassins in the world.

President Trump may turn out to be our greatest president for what he has done for the country, regardless of his faults. So far he has prevented a Civil War and his programs for Tariffs, Energy, Manufacturing, etc., may buy us enough time to prevent a major Economic Collapse.

Ultimately he must free himself of control by the PSRRC, Jewish Lobby and Media, which has never been done before by other presidents. If he survives, he can once again follow the Constitution, which is the only way to achieve sustained prosperity.

Few people realize that the underlying cause of our Economic problem is that the role of the states and the federal government were reversed when Income Taxes were legalized. The States are Sovereign governments with all of the required powers. The Federal Establishment has only a few powers that states have given them in the Constitution. The Income Tax deprived states of income, and Washington usurped powers ofthe states, which is why much of Federal Government is Unconstitutional and Criminal.

Everything I said is for naught if Illegal Invaders are not deported prior to the 2030 Census, regardless of cost. Otherwise we are destroyed like Europe.

The post Stops Foreign Spending, Funding Illegals, and Obeys the Constitution! appeared first on LewRockwell.

If the United States Wants To Survive It Must Free Itself From Israel

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

I have university degrees in ancient, medieval and early modern history but search as I may, I cannot find another example of a small, low population state largely devoid of natural resources that has been able to dominate the politics and policies of a much larger great power to the extent that Israel controls many aspects of America’s government, its economy, its education system, its media, and, most of all, its foreign and national security policies. Little Israel commands and the superpower United States obeys, a relationship that has coined the expression “the tail wags the dog.”

To be sure, Israel has resources that might be regarded as unconventional for most nation states around the globe, consisting of a large and astonishingly wealthy network of “diaspora” co-religionists who are prepared to corrupt the governments in the countries where they actually live to benefit the Jewish state in every way possible. Politicians can easily be bought by Jewish billionaires, as in the case of President Donald Trump who reportedly received $100 million as a campaign donation from Israeli Las Vegas casino magnate Miriam Adelson, plausibly in exchange for Israel having a free hand in the West Bank, up to and including total annexation and deportation of the inhabitants to eliminate a possible Palestinian state.

In the United States, this Zionist Lobby power has produced a series of presidents terrified to object to what Israel declares to be its interests, plus a Congress that has been bought and manipulated into total submission to war criminals like Israel’s ghastly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Even the US Constitution is no defense against Israel’s interests, with First Amendment free speech rights being abridged through the interpretation that any criticism of the self-described Jewish state is ipso facto a hate crime, which is a felony.

The abuse inherent in the relationship, which is hugely expensive to the US and damaging to its real interests, is fortunately beginning to be so visible that a reaction to the arrangement is beginning to penetrate to the level of the average voters. Opinion polls suggest that most Americans oppose what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, but President Donald Trump and the clowns he has appointed to high office, Zionists all, are unmoved. Hopefully they will see the light if a strong message is sent during elections coming up in November.

In a recent interview, I declared that the only real national security threat against the United States comes from Israel in that it has repeatedly pushed America into bad policy choices to serve its own interests. That means that policymakers, in search of the number one “American enemy” in the world, should look no farther than Israel and they should immediately take steps to distance themselves from Israeli initiatives. In terms of other alleged threats to the US, one must concede that most analyses coming out of Washington are essentially phony, designed to deflect from real problems, including which is what to do about Israel and the all-powerful Israeli Lobby reenforced by the “waiting for a Rapture” Christian Zionists that have taken over so much of the government. Sorry Marco Rubio but Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela do not threaten the United States of America. Continuation of the dance of death with the Israelis will on the contrary be likely to lead to ruin for Americans.

The sad truth is that the United States gains absolutely nothing from its bondage to Israel, quite the contrary. When I was in government in CIA Stations and Bases in Europe and the Middle East I used to hear US politicians proclaiming how Israel (Mossad) shared wonderful intelligence information that made America safer. The truth was quite different as I used to see the Israel-generated reports and they were consistently puff pieces intended to make Arabs and Iranians look bad by inventing “threats.” It was that type of information, i.e. the claimed existence of WMD, promoted by Jewish neocons in the media as well as in the Defense Department and in the Vice President’s office, that led to war against a completely non-threatening Iraq that killed as many as 600,000 Iraqis.

More recent developments illuminate just how poisonous the relationship with Israel is, though one might also dare to mention long ago Jewish state perfidy like the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 that killed 34 sailors and the suspicions about Israeli involvement in both the killing of JFK and 9/11, all of which were subject to deliberate US government cover-ups and bungled investigations. Israel does not hesitate to kill Americans, witness the cases of protester Rachel Corrie and journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, both of whom were murdered by the Israeli army. In neither case did the US Embassy demand an explanation from the Israelis.

This past June, Israel decided to attack Iran and convinced Donald Trump to join in the game, with the argument that Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons, which was not true. Israel, of course, has its own secret nuclear arsenal, and has even threatened to use the weapons in the Samson Option, but both Tel Aviv and Washington apparently regard that as perfectly acceptable. So the United States, to oblige Israel, followed on to the Israeli attack and hit selected targets in Iran. This led to a lying or ignorant, you can take your choice, Trump boasting about how he had “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear development sites, which was not true. So what was gained? Again “nothing” but the US went to war, a war crime, solely to appease Israel and spent something like $1 billion to carry out the mission.

More recently, Israel bombed a residential building in Doha, the capital of Qatar, in a bid to kill Hamas officials who were in the city to negotiate a cease fire in Gaza with the Israelis. The meeting was allegedly backed and “guaranteed” by Washington but it now appears that, at the same time, Trump or his associates were conniving with Israel to assassinate the Hamas representatives. The US has its largest air base in the Middle East in Qatar at Al Udeid with 10,000 American military on site. Mysteriously, the base’s radar and air defense system appear to have been turned off when the Israeli planes were approaching the target. One wonders who ordered that. And the planes needed to be refueled to return to Israel after the attack. Conveniently, British Royal Air Force tankers were in the area to carry out that task. Sounds like a set-up to end any chance of a ceasefire by killing Hamas envoys in an ostensibly safe country Qatar that was orchestrated by Israel, the US and Britain. And what does the United States of America gain from it? “Nothing!” Or rather, global hatred of Washington due to its groveling support of all things Israeli just crept up by ten points!

And then there is the Genocide in Gaza itself. If there is any remaining confusion about Trump’s true intentions, one might cite Netanyahu, who has asserted that he has complete American support to do whatever he wants in Gaza, “no partial deals with Hamas, go with full force.” It is nevertheless difficult to imagine how average Americans benefit by allowing the crime against humanity to go on and on, something that could be stopped with a phone call if Donald Trump had even a trace of compassion hidden somewhere in that empty head that he bears.

Regrettably, the United States is completely complicit in the atrocity that is taking place in Gaza which is clearly visible to the entire world. And the US is even paying for and providing the arms for the slaughter. There is a certain irony in the fact that Washington funds the war for Israel, which has both free medical care and free higher education for its Jewish citizens, something that many American citizens are reportedly struggling with. One might well describe it as a misplaced priority, but it is in reality yet another symptom of the power that Israel has over the United States government from top to bottom.

Finally, if any additional evidence were required to demonstrate Israel’s power over the United States, the recent block by Washington on visa issuance for Palestinian participation in the United Nations opening session in New York as well as the general ban on accepting passports issued by the Palestine Authority are steps demanded by Israel to make it impossible for Palestinians to argue their own case for statehood and decent treatment in international fora. And what does the US get out of it even though it in theory supports a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine? Nothing.

Such is the level of pure evil emanating from Israel that many have come to believe that it is capable of any crime, which is quite likely true. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on Wednesday, reportedly had begun to entertain some criticism of Israel which had resulted in threats that led him to employ bodyguards. As a result of that and other developments, momentum is growing to do something about Israel, which is clearly considered a threat to all the world, completely reckless in its behavior, and having “secret” nuclear weapons that it is very likely prepared to use. Suspension from the UN and the insertion of an international protection force in Gaza to stop the genocide are being discussed under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which empowers the General Assembly to recommend such steps to take when the Security Council is unable to act due to the expected US veto. There are also calls for Israel’s presence and privileges within the UN system to be suspended until a ceasefire in Gaza and full humanitarian access to the strip is restored. But never fear, Donald Trump will receive his orders from Benjamin Netanyahu and the US will do everything in its power as the rogue state it has become to stop any such action, including threats of sanctions and even violence against those promoting those moves, just as the US has done with the International Criminal Court and other bodies seeking an end to Israel’s war crimes. That is the unfortunate reality.

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post If the United States Wants To Survive It Must Free Itself From Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Men of the West: We Are at War

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

It’s a strange thing. I was writing today about the tests of brutality we endure in the western world in modern times, trying to explain why things cannot continue the way they have been for much longer, when the news hit the feeds on the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I forced myself to watch the video footage, just as I forced myself to watch the recent murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by a black man on a train who then bragged about how he “Got that white girl”.

I witnessed leftist journalists try to hide the event and bury the story until it blew up on social media and they had no choice but to cover it. And when they did, they complained more about online treatment of the killer than they complained about the murder itself.

I have watched thousands of leftists across the web cheer for the death of that innocent girl. I have watched hundreds-of-thousands of them cheer for trans mass shooters after they killed Christian kids, just as they now cheer for the death of Charlie Kirk.

They can barely contain their glee. They blame Kirk and his beliefs as the catalyst; as if he is being punished for a crime. They say “people are fed up with right wing violence”, but where is this violence? It doesn’t exist. The claim is gaslighting on an epic level. The only violence we have seen for the past decade has been from the political left. Normally this behavior would be called terrorism.

Riots in the streets, innocent people assaulted, Christian events attacked, multiple assassination attempts and a slew of mass shootings, all from politically motivated leftists. And the only thing they can come up with is January 6th, a short lived riot which was CAUSED by Capitol Police shooting peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas.

What was Charlie Kirk’s real crime? He committed the most egregious sin there is when it comes to the political left – He told the truth without shame. For this, he was murdered.

I didn’t necessarily agree with Kirk on every issue. In particular, I think he put far too much stock in the idea that public debate would make a difference. I think it has diminishing returns. Progressives only seem to get worse with each argument they lose. They only become more unhinged, more violent. Trying to reason with such zealots is a waste of energy, but at least it gets the message out to the normies, if there are any normies left.

The reliance on public debate is part of a deeper problem within conservative and populist movements; we tend to cling to the notion that we are fighting a political battle and that this battle can be won by being the most factual, the most reasonable, the most right.

As I have always said: Leftists do not care about being right. They only care about winning.

We have been engaging in civics while the woke cult engages in sabotage, mob violence, child grooming and assassination. Conservatives are naturally reticent to abandon order or abandon the law. The political left knows this – they count on it. They know we are limited in how we fight back because we have an expectation that the system can be corrected and reformed.

The problem is that the system is infected. It’s infested by parasites. In order for social discourse to achieve anything constructive, both sides have to be patriotic. Both sides have to love their culture and country to a certain degree and want the best for the future. Leftists and globalists HATE the west. They hate the US. They want to turn it to dust. They want the memory of it erased from history. There is no level of reason or diplomacy that can dissolve their bitter psychopathy.

In other words, McCarthy was right. The left needs to go.

This is not to say that conscience and respect for order is a weakness. If we didn’t have these things then we would be no better than the progressives. My point, however, is that we need to come to grips with the reality that total war has been declared against the west and we must start acting like we are at war if our civilization is going to survive.

This is where I part ways with many of my Libertarian colleagues. This problem is not about American citizens in disagreement. This is not about the old days of polite political dysfunction. Again, this is a war, a shooting war and a mind war. I’m not interested in the constitutional rights of people who have declared war on me, my country and the very freedoms they hide behind.

If they want to burn the west to the ground to usher in their own dystopian collectivist vision, then the only logical response is to burn THEM to the ground.

For the past few years I have warned about the events that are now unfolding. In my article “Terror Attacks Kick Off In 2025 – It’s Only Going To Get Worse So Be Prepared”, published in January, I argued that:

“…There is a serious risk of civil destabilization in 2025 caused by a steady series of terror attacks. Some of them might be planned by legitimate suspects while others could be fabricated by covert interests in order to stir up public fear. I would also warn specifically about far-left groups reverting to Weather Underground-like tactics in order to disrupt conservative reforms…”

“After witnessing the “fiery but peaceful” activities of groups like Antifa and BLM during the 2020 riots I don’t find it hard to believe that there may also be an activist element in the US right now that’s willing to engage in infrastructure terrorism and political assassination. This is not to say that the leftists themselves are highly organized, but there is evidence that they are managed by calculating people behind the scenes.

In other words, elitist institutions can very easily use far-left actors to carry out terror attacks because leftists only need a “nudge” to go down that path. Just as many Islamic fundamentalists are so easy to nudge into mass violence…”

There are those that theorize that Kirk’s shooting is a “false flag” and that this is about sowing divisions among Americans. News Flash: We are already divided. Even without encouragement we would be divided. Too many liberty minded people make the mistake of thinking our problems stop with the globalists at the top, but they are only one part of this conflict.

The other part is at the bottom of the pyramid – The millions of progressives that want to see the world in flames. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if Kirk was killed by a “lone nut” or an organized conspiracy, the end result is the same. The lefties are still applauding. They still want you dead. So, they still need to be dealt with.

Before the news of the assassination I was thinking about measured responses – Particularly the subject of “martial law” and whether or not this is a justifiable solution given the circumstances, or a reaction of fear leading to a slippery slope of government authoritarianism.

Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington DC has been a resounding success so far, but he can’t keep the troops there forever. The root of the disease needs to be addressed, particularly the corrupt Democrat leaders in blue cities who are keeping repeat offenders out of prisons and on the streets.

Frankly, I see martial law as nothing more than a stop gap even with the best of intentions; like giving someone morphine for their Stage 4 cancer. It feels good and takes the pain away for a little while but on the inside the body is still dying. Martial law doesn’t go far enough. The time for measured responses is over.

Consider for a moment, though, what the natural alternative is? What is going to happen next? It’s not hard to predict: It’s going to be open season on leftist activists and the elites who fund them. It’s going to be widespread vigilantism. And, honestly I welcome it. I wish that this was not necessary, but I accept the reality that it is inevitable.

I don’t think leftists understand what is about to happen. I think they have gotten away with their evil for so long they think they are untouchable. In truth, the only reason they continue to exist is because of men like Charlie Kirk who put so much value in traditional and peaceful opposition. Whoever the shooter is, they killed one of the nice guys.

When we witness a defining moment like the assassination of Kirk, I think it’s important to hold these images in our minds, as horrible as they are. Civilized society is quick to move on and absorb the next tragedy without properly dwelling on their rage. We need to be much angrier than we are.

Is vengeance the answer? I would say balance is the answer. Justice is the answer. For now, there is no justice. There is no balance.

What I see is a culture under siege on every level and we are not taking these attacks seriously enough. How much longer can we endure mass invasions from the third world? How much longer can we endure the indoctrination of our children? How much longer can we allow our speakers to be silenced, by censorship or by the bullet? How much longer will our neighborhoods remain safe when career criminals are protected by the system?

People who hate the west and want to see the west harmed should be kicked out. NGOs and corporations that fund these activists need to be shut down and scattered to the winds, by force if necessary. People and groups that actively seek to cripple the west and exploit or kill western citizens need to be eliminated. This is not complicated.

Men of the west must stand and defend themselves. We must defend our principles, our ideals and our people. This means destroying all enemies, foreign and domestic. This means patriots going to war.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Men of the West: We Are at War appeared first on LewRockwell.

The American Male Humiliation Ritual

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

I used to love the show South Park. I thought it was often brilliant satire, and they seemed to be pretty much equal opportunity offenders. They produced some classic episodes, skewering pop culture and primarily utilizing their lead character, antihero Eric Cartman, they featured large doses of political incorrectness.

However, over the past five years or so, South Park has changed dramatically. And not for the better. I looked forward to their take on the COVID psyop. All that irrational hysteria and nonsensical “science” should have added up to comedy gold. But no, instead, they opted to make fun of anti-vaxxers, and seemed to take the “pandemic” all too seriously. And at that point, they really lit into Donald Trump. In fact, during the Biden presidency, the doddering codger was not once depicted on the show. He should have inspired some incredible laughs. Cackling Kamala Harris was missing as well. I didn’t really contemplate this too much at the time. Yes, it was disappointing to see the supposedly iconoclastic show peddle the party line on COVID, but it wasn’t until just a few months ago, with the debut of season 27, that it became clear that South Park was now little more than a cartoon version of Saturday Night Live.

First, Donald Trump is shown having an affair with Satan himself. The cartoon reveals them in bed together, and a great emphasis has been placed on Trump’s penis, which of course is portrayed as very tiny. You can’t mention Trump in Hollywood without referencing his micro-penis. It was bad enough to show Trump’s cartoon penis, but the episode I saw the other day, one blasphemously titled “Sermon on the Mount,” quite possibly represents the absolute nadir of our decadent culture. At one point, a very realistic looking Trump is striding through the desert, and begins to strip off all his clothes. There are long, luxurious glimpses of his very real looking big bare ass, and then he lays down on his back, and the audience is treated to a closeup of an utterly lifelike AI small penis. No public figure has ever been subjected to this kind of vitriol. Just picture that being Biden, or Obama. Or any female celebrity in the world.

What is most amazing is how Trump, who is renowned for responding in kind to any perceived slight, has totally ignored this truly pornographic attack on him. Why haven’t his sons, or the princess Ivanka, publicly taken South Park to task? Total silence. Why isn’t Trump threatening to sue, which he normally loves to do? And the alt right seems to think that this sacrilegious episode, and others starring Satan, school counselor Jesus, and Trump’s micro-penis, are hilarious. This is beyond when NYPD Blue started showing Dennis Franz’s sagging naked ass on television. This was a literal assault upon the sensibilities of the viewing audience. And judging from the tepid negative response, the viewing audience has been desensitized to such a degree that there hasn’t been a whimper of protest. The Republicuck reaction from the MAGA crowd was best expressed when J.D. Vance chuckled that he had “finally made it,” after being depicted as carrying the baby oil to lovers Trump and Satan.

South Park has been written and produced by Trey Parker and Matt Stone from its inception. Randolph Severn “Trey” Parker III came from a “comfortable” family, as the “III” in his name suggests. Outside of all the Black football players now using fantasy “III” and “IV” tags at the end of their names, only those from the upper crust boast this distinction. Matt Stone is, not surprisingly, Jewish. I don’t think you can have a successful entertainment product without a Jew playing a significant role. Parker’s first marriage, to a Japanese woman, was officiated by Norman Lear, the godfather of liberal television propaganda. That’s a decidedly odd choice for a supposed “libertarian” who loves to blast the Left. Stone is married to a Black woman. Parker and Stone’s longtime attorney Kevin Morris has financially supported and also represented Hunter Biden. Parker and Stone just happen to have received an incomprehensible $1.5 billion from Paramount directly prior to the 27th season.

So it obviously pays to play along with our thoroughly evil elite. If you can explain the business model for giving people who oversee a cartoon that kind of money, let me know- I am just a humble community college dropout. This figurative flagellation of Trump is merely the latest in a series of male humiliation rituals, which have been with us for a very long time. Think of all those male comedians who wound up in drag at some point. Pretty much every one donned a dress during their careers. And for unexplainable reasons, this is considered humorous. From “Uncle Miltie” Berle to “Tootsie” and “Mrs. Doubtfire,” this has been an ironclad entertainment industry trope. They say that in Shakespeare’s day, all the female roles were played by male actors at the Globe Theatre. Of course, they say a lot of things, most of them untrue. So people wanted to see men snuggling with males in drag, doing love scenes? In the seventeenth century? Maybe the transgender agenda is older than we think.

Although producing some undeniably classic work, Parker and Stone were always careful to stay within politically safe boundaries. Before Donald Trump seduced him, Satan was portrayed in a sexual relationship with Saddam Hussein. There was no spoof of “weapons of mass destruction,” and no damnation of Zionism. Zero criticism of Israel. South Park had a show that blasted 9/11 “Truthers” as well, and in the commentary for the DVD collection of their shows, they admitted that they thought anyone who believed 9/11 was an inside job was “retarded.” Bill Clinton was never lampooned on the show. Neither was Obama. No “Big Mike” jokes here, thank you. Dubya Bush was, but it was almost done fondly. Only Trump got this kind of special attention. Kanye West was raked over the coals in an earlier show; is it possible that his disdain for Jews dominating the industry was already known to Parker and Stone? No other Black figure was ever treated quite this disrespectfully on the cartoon.

A few years ago, at the Academy Awards (I think it was the Oscars, might have been the Emmys- it’s easy to confuse these shameless shows), former ‘rassler turned actor John Cena came onstage naked. For no reason. Now, he was holding a large placard in front of him, so no one saw anything. It wasn’t as bad as Trump’s AI penis in the desert. But who thought this was a good idea? Who thought this was relevant to a film awards show? Cena has little talent, and yet has been rewarded handsomely for it. So if he’s ordered to perform a humiliation ritual, he’s going to do it. Another good example was the 1981 movie Modern Problems, starring Chevy Chase. The lovely Patti D’Arbanville was the leading lady (she is at least somewhat of a fan of my work- maybe she’s reading this) and Mary Kay Place was in the cast. They kept their clothes on, but in one excruciating scene, Dabney Coleman just walks into an office stark naked. Struts around so the audience has a great view of his ass. No penises were allowed yet.

In the “comedy” Old School, the almost supernaturally unfunny Will Ferrell suddenly decides to strip in the middle of a road, and then starts running wildly, with his bare ass onscreen for far too long a time. There was as little reason for him to do this as there was for Dabney Coleman to be naked in an office around fully clothed women. They were humiliation rituals, and they are always reserved for males. Just picture say, Tina Fey, suddenly deciding to strip and run down the road naked. Do you think there would ever be the slightest chance of that? The audience doesn’t question it when a male decides to suddenly get naked. They don’t wonder why no females ever decide to do that. In The Simpsons Movie, Homer dared his ten year old son Bart to get naked and skateboard through town. Naturally, the makers of the film treated us to that, and included a groundbreaking shot of a ten year old cartoon penis. What would the reaction be if Marge dared Lisa to do the same thing? Cartoon child porn?

The nudity in adult cartoons is, and always has been 99% male. This includes male children, as in the frequently naked Bart Simpson. These are more symbolic humiliation rituals, which the public learns from. When male nudity occurs, it’s so that the audience can laugh at it. It’s never because someone in the audience might want to see it. When female nudity was far more common, in the 1970s, it was always done in a way that was respectful to the woman. Male nudity is never respectful. Old Jack Nicholson bared his ass for absolutely no reason in one of his last films. In his posthumously released film finale, Robin Williams was show walking along in one of those handy patient gowns that open in the back, the better to see male (but never female) patients’ asses with. It was a way of showing that even big stars have to undergo a ritual humiliation if ordered to. What was macho athlete Bruce Jenner’s “transitioning” into “Caitlin” supposed to be, other than the ultimate humiliation?

Why did Rudy Giuliani pose for that ridiculous video with Donald Trump, several years ago, where he was dressed in drag? Rudy and Trump seemingly became a bit too cozy, but Rudy was a made man by that point. Why denigrate himself like that? How many conservative Republicans have been outed as gay themselves over the past few decades? The conclusion is inescapable that public officials, and celebrities, are “installed” because they have such skeletons in their closet. If you have something that you want to remain hidden, you’re more likely to listen to orders, and be easier to control. Put on this dress and makeup- it will be good for a lot of laughs. Get naked. Now. This humiliation ritual stuff has spawned its own subsets of pornography. There’s the whole naked men/clothed women thing. And, of course, the ever popular White man being cuckolded by his wife, usually with a Black man.

But Donald Trump is the first national politician to undergo a ritual humiliation. Now, I think it’s just a very ugly part of the Trumpenstein Project, and he’s almost certainly in on the “joke.” Regardless, it represents a new cultural low, even for our Sodom and Gomorrah-like America 2.0. It’s a small step from showing his penis in gratuitous detail to severing his head and playing soccer with it, as our beloved military troops were known to do in Iraq. There have been pinatas and other nude figures based on Trump that have appeared in recent years, including a 43 foot tall naked Trump figure, complete with micro-penis, in Las Vegas. It’s just accepted. Imagine a 43 foot tall naked Hillary Clinton figure going up anywhere without mass opposition, and federal courts ordering it torn down. Can you picture a comedian with enough courage to laughingly suggest Barack Obama had a micro-penis? A proud half-Black man? He would be lucky to escape prosecution.

The cultural examples are endless. Why the running gag with the obnoxious older son on the TV series The Middle walking around the house constantly in just his underpants? You know they wanted him nude, but that may have to wait a few years. Why not his teenage sister, always walking around in bra and panties? Same thing for the son on the cartoon Bob’s Burgers. Just loves to get naked. Funny that his sisters don’t have the same strange impulse. This is just one way in which the cultural matriarchy is enforced. I can go way back to the early, pre-code talkies, when nudity was sometimes permitted. Only it was almost always male bare butts that were exposed. Sure, gays were a power in Hollywood even then, but did no one question this? Nudity is clearly defined as embarrassing and funny for males, but female nudity is never played for laughs. It probably would be funny, for example, if Rosie O’Donnell ran down the street naked. But we’re talking strictly male ritual humiliation here.

Read the Whole Article

The post The American Male Humiliation Ritual appeared first on LewRockwell.

Erasing Encephalitis: Why Vaccine Brain Injuries Became Autism

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

I have long believed that public relations (propaganda) is one of the most powerful but invisible forces in our society, as again and again, I’ve seen professional PR firms create narratives most of the country believes (regardless of how much it goes against their self interests). Most remarkably—despite the fact the exact same thing is done again and again to the public—most people simply can’t see it, and oftentimes when you try to point out exactly how they are again being bamboozled by a PR campaign, they still can’t (instead often insisting you are paranoid or delusional).

As such, one of my major goals in this publication has been to expose this industry as once you understand their playbook (e.g., having “independent” experts parrot sculpted language which is then repeated by the entire media), it’s very easy to spot and saves you from falling into the traps most people do (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccines were facilitated by the largest PR campaign of our lifetime).

Furthermore, one of the least appreciated consequences of public relations (which I realized after reading an eye-opening 2002 article on the industry) is that many of our cultural beliefs ultimately originate from PR campaigns. This hence explains why so many widely believed things are “wrong” as were a belief to be true, it would not require a massive PR investment to instill in the society, and due to the power of PR, viewpoints it instills tend to crowd out the other cultural beliefs.

In this article, we will take a deeper look at what’s behind one of those implanted beliefs: “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

CDC Firings

RFK Jr., with Trump’s support, set out to reform America’s vaccine program and rebuild public trust in medicine through the seemingly innocuous task of:

• Having Secretary Kennedy uphold the vaccine safety requirements mandated by the 1986 the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

• Openly evaluate the data behind the risk-benefit ratio for each childhood vaccine.

• Require new vaccines to have clinical trials demonstrating their safety and efficacy prior to approval.

However, from the start, rather than be supported in this endeavor (particularly since medical authorities and legislators are becoming immensely concerned about the public loss of trust in medicine), he has been publicly attacked with a startling degree of hatred and fervor. Furthermore, beyond the partisan rancor and media defamation, vaccine zealots within the government have actively sought to sabotage all of RFK’s efforts to make raw vaccine data available to the public.

Because of this, the new CDC director (as she was the only one with the statutory authority to fire them) was requested to remove a few of the most problematic CDC officials, and after refusing to, was fired a month into the job. Immediately following this, those officials resigned.

One of those vaccine zealots, Demetre Daskalakis then decided to make a scene about RFK’s “war on science,” after which the public became rapidly aware he was an activist doctor with a strong commitment to promoting DEI (diversity equity and inclusion) and had a large number of public photos of him with other men in various fetish outfits, many of which also contained satanic symbology (and can be viewed here).

As many have tried to grasp how the CDC callously ignored the litany of reports they had the COVID vaccines were seriously injuring or killing their recipients, this led to many commentators highlighting Daskalakis’s personal preferences likely explained why he and others directed the CDC to abuse America by relentlessly pushing COVID vaccines.

When observing the DEI phenomenon, I’ve noticed that beyond many individuals having a religious zeal with it, in many cases, their obsession is akin to it being a fetish for diverse individuals. As, such, Rand Paul’s viral commentary about the CDC leadership immediately caught my attention and left me wondering if the same could be said about vaccines:

Note: the newborn Hepatitis B vaccine is one of the most controversial vaccines (as it is not safe, and to achieve its “benefit,” preventing a newborn case of Hepatitis B, hundreds of thousands of hospital babies need to be vaccinated). That argument, however, was a lie concocted to shield the actual reason for mass newborn hepatitis B vaccination, as the actual reason was not palatable to the general public (which will be covered in an upcoming article). Yet despite it not making sense, most people (especially those in medicine) reflexively believe we have a moral imperative to vaccinate children after childbirth to prevent them from catching it during childbirth—again illustrating how powerful these implanted beliefs can be.

CDC Duplicity

Due to the attention Daskalakis’s fetishes attracted, much of the focus on those events was diverted away from a few other critical things revealed by the events. For example, when he resigned, Daskalakis posted a tone deaf resignation letter (you can read here) which, beyond accusing RFK Jr. of being a menace to science and society who was politicizing science to fit his agenda, repeatedly used the phrase “pregnant person” and accused “RFK and his minions” of being modern day Nazis and Eugenists that needed to be stopped at any cost.

As a result, rather than garner sympathy, his resignation post offended a lot of people and rapidly went viral (being seen by 20 million times). Following the pushback he received for these remarks (e.g., his DEI advocacy), he then went on a friendly news outlet (CNN), and, in a brief segment doubled-down on them.

This was noteworthy to me for two reasons. First, it illustrates how much of a bubble these people lived in (due to being shielded from any consequences for their abhorrent COVID actions throughout the Biden presidency), as Daskalakis both in his letter, and his subsequent CNN appearance believed his statements would garner public support for his position rather than thoroughly discrediting it—even when the feedback on Twitter was already making it clear his letter backfired.

Secondly, it illustrates how duplicitous these people are, as shortly after the initial interview, he went onto another friendly network (MSNBC) and gave a totally different interview where he spoke in a markedly differently manner and did not mention his unpopular positions (e.g., he said “pregnant women” instead of “pregnant persons”), Instead rolled out a long list of polished smears against RFK Jr. while simultaneously having the host (one of Biden’s Press Secretaries) repeatedly cast lavish praise upon him both him and his (ridiculous) letter.

From watching this, I was relatively certain Daskalakis was coached by a PR firm for this interview. As such rather than spend a few pages explaining why give or take every statement made by both parties was a manipulative lie, I felt this segment was important to highlight as it was a textbook example of how these people lie to us. For example, it was full of unnatural sculpted phrases designed to manipulate the audience, including fairly over-the-top ones such as using “those images are burned in my mind” (to describe CDC workers…giving him a round of applause when he left).

More importantly, as the prior context showed, it was anything but sincere, as beyond the language being entirely different from Daskalakis’s previous statements, he avoided the unpopular transgender-affirming language he had previously doubled down on the importance of.

Following this, RFK then went on Fox news where he stated the following about Daskalakis (all of which matches what my H.H.S. contacts told me earlier in the year):

Yeah, I mean, that individual actually came to my attention kind of early on during the measles outbreak. I promised Governor Abbott to send money down, badly needed money and help down to Texas, and this individual blocked that money for a month. I couldn’t figure out what’s happening. I gave the order. I’m running this agency. How come nothing’s happening?

Then we tried to get the Vaccine Safety Data Link, which is the data that the CDC is supposed to use to make good decisions on whether vaccines are hurting people and whether there’s side effects. For seven months, he stonewalled us so we couldn’t get the data.

He’s also the individual that runs the system, which is the surveillance system for injuries that captures, according to the CDC’s own study, fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries. This is malpractice. These people are the people who ordered our children to walk around in masks, the people who closed our schools, they’re the people who imposed social distancing with no science, shut down our businesses, and they need to go.

This in turn highlighted two critical points:

First, Daskalakis was placed in charge of vaccinations at the CDC starting in August 2023. Given that he actively defied RFK’s orders and concealed vaccine safety data in 2025, it is almost certain he also did so throughout COVID, particularly since the leadership at that time also wanted to conceal any evidence of COVID-19 vaccine harm (to protect the vaccine program).

Note: another CDC leader who resigned with Daskalakis stated he was “increasingly uncomfortable with the things he was being asked to do, including providing data for a new analysis of vaccine safety data for potential links to autism, even though dozens of studies have already examined that claim and not found a connection” (which again illustrates why no evidence of the link is ever found).

Secondly, one of the primary arguments which has been repeatedly raised to discredit RFK is that his vaccine skepticism will unleash a deadly and catastrophic wave of measles upon the country, whereas in contrast, the “real scientists” at the CDC will do everything they can to prevent the spread of measles and save Americans. Beyond this being a bit strange (as measles outbreaks are a minute health threat compared to many of the other issues we are dealing with), these remarks show Daskalakis willfully made the choice to sabotage the Texas measles response.

This is critically important, as it shows they never actually cared about measles and rather were just using it as a political tool to fulfill their agenda (as virtually all of RFK’s critics blamed both that measles outbreak and everything which went awry in it on RFK Jr). Likewise, it again illustrates how normal this degree of duplicity is within the CDC leadership.

Erasing Encephalitis

A key theme of George Orwell’s book 1984 is that language defines a culture, and if ideas aren’t in it, the populace can’t conceive of them (which is why 1984’s ruling party eliminated words like ‘freedom’, ‘rebellion’ and ‘justice’ from the new language).

While the extent classic “linguistic determination” like Orwell’s affects the population remains hotly debated, it is generally agreed to significantly influence certain key aspects of cognition. Likewise, I believe it has a significant impact, but it is much smaller in critically thinking individuals who also have significant creativity (as they are much more likely to move beyond the unsatisfactory frameworks in front of them).

However, what’s much less appreciated is that other (more effective) forms of linguistic determination are used to manipulate the public. One of the most common ones is to use an ambiguous term which is not clearly defined, so that depending on the needs of the situation, the audience can be steered towards the desired interpretation of it, even if those interpretations sometimes overtly contradict each other (effectively allowing the PR firm’s client to “have their cake and eat it).

Similarly, in a previous article, I highlighted how Fauci was a master of using slippery language to constantly get whatever he wanted with no accountability by implying but never explicitly stating his desired conclusion (which the media would then run with). One of the best examples of this tactic is having everyone in lockstep assert vaccines are “safe and effective” without ever defining what that actually means, thereby allowing the meaningless statement to be treated as “vaccines are 100% safe and effective,” yet simultaneously, having no accountability for lying as those who repeat it never actually said “100% safe and effective”. This was best demonstrated when Fauci (who continually told us the vaccine would prevent us from getting COVID) was grilled at a recent Congressional hearing, where in response to:

But we knew from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were subject to getting covid so was the covid vaccine 100% effective?

Fauci stated:

I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective.

Note: in a recent article, I also highlighted how the ambiguous phrase “brain death” was created to make people believe unresponsive individuals were in fact dead, thereby both removing the societal cost of perpetually caring for them and securing a reliable supply of donor organs.

One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerve and brain), and prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, as I showed in this article, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature—including many identical to what are seen in modern day autism.

In turn, what many do not know, is that it used to be widely recognized that vaccines could make you “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Consider for example the language at this 1983 debate between doctors which took place on the Donahue Show (that at the time was the largest talk show in America)—which to my knowledge was the last time a large publicized debate like was allowed to happen.

Given the taboo around “retarded” which exists now, it hence it quite a shocking contrast to see how normal that language was at the time—a shift which resulted from disability groups in the late 1990s and early 2000’s campaigning against it, a large 2008 campaign (ending the “r-word”) and in 2010, Obama signing a law which effectively outlawed the term by removing “mentally retarded” from all federal laws and statutes and replacing it with “intellectual disability” (something which has never been done with any other word).

Once I learned about this, I immediately realized what happened and was able to confirm that the vaccine brain injuries which made children mentally retarded were re-labeled as “autism” and more importantly that autism was given an extremely broad and vague definition which swept over all the concurrently occurring neurological injuries.

Because of this, the stark and unmistakable impression of a severe vaccine brain injury (e.g., “you know Sue’s son became severely retarded after their 2 month vaccines”) was displaced with a much more amorphous term that was easy to write off because it was too complex and vague to think about (hence providing easy mental escapes from an uncomfortable topic so people simply write it off and close their minds to it).

Note: the mechanisms through which vaccines cause autism are explained here.

Read the Whole Article

The post Erasing Encephalitis: Why Vaccine Brain Injuries Became Autism appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Way To End Inflation

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

As Thomas Jefferson foretold, 536 despots are surely as oppressive as one. Today, a plural executive made up of the current 435 representatives, 100 senators, and vice president fills up the legislative calendar with logrolling, driving up spending.

These legislators extract their takings by taxing a lot away from everybody who adds value and by inflating away the rest from everybody who uses the politicians’ government-monopoly money.

Legislators’ grabbing and executives’ handover of the executive power to allocate budgets — legislators’ supposed line-item “power of the purse” — violates the Constitution to its core.

Constitution Secures Rights by Separating and Offsetting Powers

The Constitution defines fundamental rules to secure life, liberty, and property. Like with all laws, the only thing that gives these rules force are the associated sanctions. The Constitution’s sanctions are its offsetting powers.

Every government person is delegated powers by the people and by oath or affirmation is required to use those powers accountably. He is to limit himself to within the boundaries of his own office, and also he is to limit others to within the boundaries of their offices.

The latter limiting is what’s crucial. If each government person limits just himself, then most must do this before governments are limited. In contrast, if some government people also limit others, then some of them will be enough to limit everybody, using offsetting powers.

But offsetting powers exist and work only if powers are kept separated.

A legislative line-item “power of the purse” violates the most critical branch separation: the boundary keeping the legislative power, which is the strongest branch power, away from the executive power, which is the next-strongest. It’s hard to overstate how foundational this constitutional violation is.

My article “The Duty to Limit the Take,” in Lincoln Memorial University Law Review’s current issue, systematically explains these errors’ unconstitutionality by considering the economic reality that the founding generation lived, the Constitution’s text, the founding generation’s arguments and actions, and businessmen’s understanding of executive power — which has evolved far more rapidly than government people’s understanding, and as a result is far superior.

Pass a Single Overall-Total Appropriation

Separating the Executive’s budget-allocation power away from legislators will begin renormalizing legislators’ and executives’ main actions.

Constitutionally, legislators must sponsor and pass a single overall-total appropriation, as outlined below.

Legislators should hold the Executive accountable to immediately start executing the Constitution more faithfully.

In year one, the Executive could, for example:

Cut defense 50%. (Simply defend the homeland.)
Cut interest 90%. (Repudiate Progressive-rebellion debt other than to USA retirees.)
Cut national welfare, education, and transportation 100%. (State government people can pick up welfare and transportation 100% and experiment from there.)

Since the Executive could make cuts this large, legislators should pass a corresponding national single overall-total appropriation that’s cut by 36%. This will leave national plus state spending cut by 24%.

Constitutionalist legislators should get this renormalization going by sponsoring or co-sponsoring this single overall-total appropriation, and by voting no to any alternative appropriations.

Business as usual can in effect be vetoed by a small minority of constitutionalists. They must use this veto. If at first a few get outvoted, more must join them.

Each incumbent who does this, and also each primary challenger who can be counted on to do this, will face massive spends from government cronies but will earn massive support from voters.

This would transform the 2026 elections. What would otherwise be a Progressive tag-team changeover or stalemate will instead be a wave election for Republican constitutionalists.

Repeal Unconstitutional Statutes, Execute Constitutional Statutes

Having started reducing overall spending, legislators must start doing their main job: passing constitutional rules and sanctions. Their first order of business must be to triage and repeal the sickening multitude of existing statutes that are plainly unconstitutional.

Each existing statute or new bill is unconstitutional unless it passes all of the following simple pass/fail tests:

(1) No misleading parts.

(2) Uses only powers enumerated for the national government.

(3) No delegation of legislative power.

(4) No grabs of executive power.

(5) No grabs of judicial power.

(6) Not noncritical, complex, or long, and not helping make the total corpus of law incomprehensibly complex or long.

There are mountains of statutes, so it would be a lengthy exercise to rigorously estimate what proportion of statutes would pass these tests. A rough approximation has been made, using Grok to document the approximation’s basis. All six tests might be passed by only 0.1% to 0.5% of existing statutes — one out of every 200 to 1,000.

Legislatively repealing the substantial scope that’s unconstitutional will greatly clear the way, leaving behind a much smaller, constitutional scope that the Executive can execute far better.

The executive, for his part, must correctly interpret which statutes and opinions are constitutional, and from there must optimally allocate and use the appropriation to faithfully execute those statutes and opinions.

Inflation is currently driven by total government spending of 43% of GDP. In the USA through 1913, other than during the Civil War, total government spending was 4% to 8% of GDP. In the American colonies, total government spending was 1% to 2% of GDP.

Our predecessors severely limited governments. This was the key to how they started building up our current substantial prosperity. We can limit ours, too, and build up even more prosperity.

Supporting the Constitution better will free us to radically build up peace and happiness.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post The Way To End Inflation appeared first on LewRockwell.

V.S. vs. Woke

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

Canceling writers is pretty common nowadays, the latest being an old friend of mine, V.S. Naipul. V.S. won the Nobel Prize for Literature—among many other awards—something very few readable writers have achieved. The Swedish Academy likes to pick obscure writers from places unknown who write unreadable books, but sometimes the great talents of Papa Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, V.S. Naipul, and such stand out and cannot be ignored, hence they are recognized. V.S.’s brother Shiva, also a writer, was a close buddy, and we used to go out and get into trouble together. He died very young after smoking sixty a day while writing. The last time I saw V.S. he came with his wife to a book party of mine in a snooty London gentlemen’s club I belonged to, and he was very, very complimentary about the silly things I write about. V.S. has now been canceled by people whose own talents could fit in one of his toenails, which he cut very short. Such are the joys of today’s intellectual midgets judging intellectual giants.

“V.S. has now been canceled by people whose own talents could fit in one of his toenails, which he cut very short.”

Trinidad-born Naipul has been condemned for his views on Africa—he correctly saw the continent as primitive and hidebound by superstition. I’d say he hit the nail on the head and had the courage to write the truth rather than think it and keep quiet, as the rest of the scribes do. Nobel Prize notwithstanding, V.S. was pilloried by so-called do-gooders after his first wife said some unflattering things about him. This I found very surprising. An ex-wife saying something unflattering about her ex must really be a first.

Never mind. Erasing a writer whose works are eternal is typical of today’s untalented. Cancellation is utterly pointless. Only a moron would follow suit, and morons don’t usually read good books. George Bernard Shaw is now considered a Nazi-lover, and his clever, socially minded books and plays are denigrated by those woke morons who make the rules today. And while I’m at it, one doesn’t look to artists as moral guides, but as artists.

The woke phonies have even included Charles Dickens among their baddies who should be canceled—Dickens of all people, who wrote nonstop in favor of the poor, but it is said he was a tyrant at home. Which I’m sure he was, having seen pictures of his wife. This canceling has to be a bad joke perpetrated by spotlight-craving fabulists who invent horror stories about their betters in order to be in the news. It is as simple as that, dear Takimag readers, so pay absolutely no attention to these lowlifes whose talents can only be appreciated in kindergartens and flophouses.

Now that we have established that people like Papa and V.S. are not to be read, let’s try to be with the in crowd and write woke. It is my first time, so please be kind: The other day here in Gstaad I ran into a birthing person chest-feeding, and I exchanged ideas with that person. Mind you, I reminded that person that gender-oriented correctness should be upheld at all times. I spoke with the inseminated person about the weather and the plight of incarcerated people suffering from involuntary confinement. The birthing person asked me whether I missed sex while under involuntary confinement. I answered with a question, whether she missed sex while inseminated? I fear I offended the birthing person because it left in a huff.

What do you, dear readers, think? This should pass the test with the woke crowd, n’est-ce pas, as they say in the land of 4,000 cheeses? So from now on let us Takimag readers respect the woke and their pronouns. And never, ever offend nonbinary people. And keep in mind that Mummy and Daddy have no right to leave their money to you because you have done nothing to earn it. By the same token, unemployment benefits should also be abolished because people on welfare also have done nothing to earn their keep except sleep all day and watch TV all night. And while I’m at it, flying the Pride flag year-round should be compulsory to all nations.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post V.S. vs. Woke appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Fearful American — The Reason Charlie Kirk Is Today Dead

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:01

When you say, “No” to a face mask, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to the death jab, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to your child for wanting something bad for him, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to your neighbor when he starts talking about things that you do not want to be a part of, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to a stranger misbehaving in public, it is so much more.

You are an adult.
You live in a free place.
Freedom is not free.
It costs.
Every society needs order.
Every society will have order.

It will have order through the civil ways that society can do that, or it will have order through the point of a gun. Those are our choices.

America has numerous founding documents, the most fundamental of those is the Bible. Appropriately, America’s second president, John Adams, wrote in 1798 in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Freedom and morality are partners, freedom cannot exist absent morality.

When you say, “Yes” to a child who needs to be told no, it is so much more.

When you say, “Yes” to a stranger misbehaving, it is so much more.

Your bold presence and your calm authority is needed everywhere you go.

There may be penalties for that. In fact, that is what most people say to me when I say that. They bring up the penalties that come with upright behavior.

Well, the fact that you bring up penalties in response to my insistence that you do the right thing, is simply proof that you are among the problem. You are among the fearful Americans — those who live in what is arguably the most free culture that has ever existed, arguably the most well-developed civilization on the planet, and you do not promote that, but you cower in fear. You fear what someone will say to you. You fear what someone will do to you. You shirk from responsibility, “so you can live to fight another day.” You shirk from responsibility so there “can be peace in my day.”

The coward is a moral cheapskate. He is unwilling to spend the capital. He is unwilling to spend the capital that it takes to build an upright society. He is very much willing to live in one, but when he is called on to build that society, he all of a sudden has nothing to offer.

And you see, the year is not 1953 anymore, nor is it 1973, nor 1993. Behaving yourself does not cut it. Back in the day when you were a mooch, living off the upright moral courage of others, maybe that did the job, but not today. An upright society is not formed by simply behaving. And we have a society that is today not upright, and that needs very much to return to being upright — and without a totalitarian to bring it to that place.

Because then, freedom is lost. Freedom is lost if we turn it all over to the strongman and ask us to build it for us. We will have neither freedom nor security from that cowardice.

When tasked with that work, you say it is just too expensive for you to stop and correct every misbehaving person in your life, it is too expensive for you to only stay silent around upright behavior. You profess freedom, but you show an unwillingness to do what it takes to return to freedom. If all you can do is to yourself behave upright and to be silent whenever anyone misbehaves around you, again, you are very much part of the problem of this era we live in.

You are the one who has always been a problem in a free society, because without your willingness to pay a price, there will be no freedom in your midst in your life. I am not saying there needs to be 51% of the population that behaves a certain way or 33% or 3% or any other number. That is a fatally flawed collectivist way of seeing the world. The world simply does not work that way. The way you behave impacts how the world around you treats you. That is how the world works — whether there be a so-called “critical mass” of people doing the same thing or not.

You, on your own, can be a leader walking through the world as a responsible man and consequently as a free man, or you can be an unfree man in the world. The rest of the world will tend to give you back what you give to it. The world may not like how you treat it. The world may wince or react loudly or violently at how you treat it. But you will generally be treated just as well as you treat the world around you. You will generally receive the standard back that you allow around you.

When you say nothing to a face mask, absolutely nothing, to a face mask worn in your presence, it is so much more.
When you say nothing to a child who needs to be told, “No,” it is so much more.
When you say nothing to a stranger misbehaving, it is so much more.

Those are the moments where society is formed. Those are the moments when an upright people are shaped. Those little areas of cultural pushback are times when you are able to grow the increasingly stronger spine that you need to live an upright life and to lead others.

This is not about a face mask.
This is about so much more.

“It is not my job!” you throw your hands up and say when a ghetto dweller acts ghetto in your presence, in a place that is not the ghetto. No, Sir, it is your job. It is your job to tell him to behave himself or to get out of there. Might you get shot when you do that. Maybe. But probably not. The more practice you get, the less likely you getting hurt becomes.

Again, the fact that you bring up penalties in response to my insistence that you do the right thing, is simple proof that you are among the problem. You are among the fearful Americans.

“It is not my job!” you throw your hands up and say when a child misbehaves in your presence and a parent does nothing. No, Sir, it is your job. It is your job to tell him to behave himself or to get out of there. It is your job to scold the parent for what takes place too. Might you get shot when you do that. Maybe. But probably not.

Again, the fact that you bring up penalties in response to my insistence that you do the right thing, is simple proof that you are among the problem. You are among the fearful Americans. When you stand up in such moments, you become better at standing up in such moments. When you speak bravely in such moments, you become better at speaking bravely in such moments. When you insist on a certain standard around you, you become better at insisting on a certain standard around you.

We are in a point in time where there are no standards.

People have the spurious debate about whether one should back the blue and have stricter policing or whether cops need to be more strictly watched for misfeasance. Both are true. The police need to be watched carefully and kept decent in their behavior, and there needs to be strict policing of crime. However, the police are not the answer. The totalitarian approach of stricter policing solving the problem of a morally lax people is a cat-and-mouse game that never works and that leads society down a bad path.

A more moral people is the real answer, a more moral people is the real answer that is needed from that distracting and spurious debate. If you are caught in that debate, you are missing the real answer. It can hardly be a surprise that such a debate is so often thrust in front of the public — because it never leads to the right answer.

The right answer is to work on yourself, and to lead everywhere you go, by example, but with more, with a much more important step — by not allowing nonsense in your presence.

The stop-gap answer is more policing. It’s not enough. It can help in an emergency. It’s not enough.

Having an upright man in a community is needed — a man who understands freedom, who understands morality, and who demands a modicum of each from all of those who wish to be around him. I am talking all day long. All day long, if there is another human being around you, it is your job to have a modicum of freedom and a modicum of decency from that person. And if there is not, it is your job to speak up.

The Karens are to be lauded, because they speak up.
The BLM protestors and cancel culture mob are laudable because they speak up.
The trannies who parade around the way they wish to are laudable because they speak up.

These people show the right behaviors required for shaping a society, only they tend to lack the moral underpinning in what they are doing.

That is where you come in.

“Live and let live,” may be a great saying when it comes to government regulation, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how to have a functioning society that does not need the government regulation. To have a day around other people that is “live and let live,” is a day in which you abrogate responsibility.

When you know that something is right or wrong, you need to speak that openly when aberrant behavior presents itself.

The time for coasting on the foundations built a century or more ago has passed.

I do not need to know who shot Charlie Kirk.
I do not care what lie I may or may not be told when the news starts to tell a story about who killed Charlie Kirk.
I know I live in a fearful America, a place that fears consequences too greatly to say, “No” to evil.
I know how significant that is.
That daily behavior, that daily unwillingness of upright man to communicate to his environment what is right and what is wrong, daily, all day long, leads to a decay that leads to the Charlie Kirk assassination and worse.

America is in a dark, dark place.
You do not realize the role you play in it when you abrogate responsibility.
You do not realize how hard it is to get back to what we had.

My Muslim friends, my Jewish friends, my atheist friends might not like this, but that will not stop me from pointing out a further detail of this dissolution of values and courage in America.

America does not need Trump, nor does it need any other man to save it.

America needs Jesus.

And America needs men who will stand up and stop letting everything around them fall apart. You can lead those in your midst, or you can watch those around you be led by the worst of influences. That choice is yours.

That choice is entirely yours.

Charlie Kirk’s lifeless body is in a casket because Americans lost the ability to identify evil and to denounce it in their midst.

What comes next in your life is up to you.

You can’t change the whole world.

But you can shape the part of the world that you interact with.

That choice is entirely yours.

The post The Fearful American — The Reason Charlie Kirk Is Today Dead appeared first on LewRockwell.

Researchers Found Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated – BUT Didn’t Publish Findings

Sab, 13/09/2025 - 05:00

Story from Epoch Times

Researchers from the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan found that vaccinated children were more likely to develop a chronic health condition, but never published the findings, according to a copy of the study obtained by The Epoch Times.

Dr. Marcus Zervos, an infectious disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health, and colleagues studied 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 who were enrolled in the health system’s insurance plan, drawing data from medical, clinical, and payer records and supplementing with information from Michigan’s immunization registry.

After 10 years, 57 percent of the vaccinated children had a chronic health condition such as asthma, compared to just 17 percent of the unvaccinated children.

“This study found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, when compared to children unexposed to vaccination,” the authors wrote.

“This association was primarily driven by asthma, atopic disease, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions.”

There’s more to this story which you can read HERE

The post Researchers Found Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated – BUT Didn’t Publish Findings appeared first on LewRockwell.

Charlie Kirk’s Death — A Mortician Explains

Ven, 12/09/2025 - 22:17

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

The post Charlie Kirk’s Death — A Mortician Explains appeared first on LewRockwell.

[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]

Sostieni il sito

Amazon It - UK

Item

Accesso utente

Navigazione

Blog ospitati

Curiosity Land

di Dusty

Buio in sala

Folli visioni, o recensioni, di un anticritico cinedipendente

Mooninjune's blog

Moon in June

Pike Bishop & Takeda Shingen

di Pike Bishop

Ring of fire

di Johnny Contanti

La strategia del caso

di Music-Band

Effetto Loto

di Eileen Morgan

No Quarter

Nell'ombra incerta di un divenire

Cerca

Interventi recenti del blog

continua

Commenti recenti

Stiamo più larghi
2 settimane 17 ore fa
Stiamo più larghi
6 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
9 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
19 settimane 2 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
20 settimane 6 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
21 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
25 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
28 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
30 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
32 settimane 3 giorni fa

Chi è on-line

Ci sono attualmente 0 utenti e 15 visitatori collegati.

Nuovi utenti

melania
Fontainebleau
ClaudioTip
Marco Caco
flying

Ultime recensioni

Noi, con un missile nel cervello.

VIP mio fratello superuomo (id 1968)

Giudizio: Imperdibile

Feroce e attualissima satira sui persuasori occulti, i massmedia e il conformismo che appiattisce le coscienze; si ride, e a patto di avere un paio di neuroni funzionanti, si riflette.

Imbrogli Lunari

American Moon (id 2017)

Giudizio: Indispensabile

Lezione di pensiero critico che piomba tra le menti atrofizzate del medioevo post-orwelliano; insinua più di un dubbio e ricorda a tutti che le bufale non sono nate con internet, risalgono all'invenzione della politica e dei mezzi di comunicazione di massa, come ad esempio la fotografia.

Guerre Stellari, Finalmente!

Rogue One (id - 2016)

Giudizio: Da vedere

Dopo la flaccida trilogia prequel di Lucas e l'immondo “risveglio” di J.J. Abrahams arriva quasi in sordina un Star Wars capace di evocare, almeno in parte, l'atmosfera della saga originale.

La finestra di Overton