Aggregatore di feed

Many people today think that it should be illegal to discriminate against other people because of their race, sex, or religion. Applied to blacks, the view I’ll be discussing claims that people should not be allowed to “discriminate” against blacks by refusing to hire them, by refusing to rent to them or to sell property to them, or to reject them in business transactions. If a customer comes into your store, you are not allowed to refuse him service. You are required to be “colorblind”, and, if you aren’t, you can be fined or jailed.

An alternative view is that you are allowed to or even required to give them preferential treatment. If, for example, two of your employees, one black and the other white or Asian, are eligible for promotion, you should promote the black employee, even if the white employee has more seniority. You can’t test people who want a job or a promotion if blacks don’t do as well on the test as whites or Asians, because this outcome shows that the test is biased against them. You are subject to be fined or even jailed if you do give such a test.

Murray Rothbard rejected all of what I have described in the preceding two paragraphs. He had a simple solution. All transactions in a free society are voluntary. You are free to associate, or not to associate with anyone who wants to associate with you.

As he puts it in For a New Liberty: “Fundamental to the libertarian creed is every man’s right to choose who shall enter or use his own property, provided of course that the other person is willing. ‘Discrimination,’ in the sense of choosing favorably or unfavorably in accordance with whatever criteria a person may employ, is an integral part of freedom of choice, and hence of a free society.”

He thought that most people wouldn’t discriminate, because there is an economic cost to doing so. You must bear all the costs of your choices: “Suppose, for example, that someone in a free society is a landlord of a house or a block of houses. He could simply charge the free market rent and let it go at that. But then there are risks; he may choose to discriminate against renting to couples with young children, figuring that there is substantial risk of defacing his property. On the other hand, he may well choose to charge extra rent to compensate for the higher risk, so that the free-market rent for such families will tend to be higher than otherwise. This, in fact, will happen in most cases on the free market. But what of personal, rather than strictly economic, ‘discrimination’ by the landlord? Suppose, for example, that the landlord is a great admirer of six-foot Swedish-Americans, and decides to rent his apartments only to families of such a group. In the free society it would be fully in his right to do so, but he would clearly suffer a large monetary loss as a result. For this means that he would have to turn away tenant after tenant in an endless quest for very tall Swedish-Americans. While this may be considered an extreme example, the effect is exactly the same, though differing in degree, for any sort of personal discrimination in the marketplace. If, for example, the landlord dislikes redheads and determines not to rent his apartments to them, he will suffer losses, although not as severely as in the first example. In any case, anytime anyone practices such ‘discrimination’ in the free market, he must bear the costs.”

Some people object to the example of redheads. They point out that most people don’t have negative views about redheads; and, even if they do, redheads can easily find someone else to deal with. But many people have negative views about blacks.  Because of this, blacks may find it difficult to find people who want to deal with them and as a result, they may have to accept inferior alternatives. Even if this is true, though, they have no right to violate the property rights of others. People’s property rights aren’t dependent on not putting others at a significant disadvantage.

But in fact, as Rothbard says, the profit motive is very strong, and most businessmen won’t be willing to give up a deal because of their personal opinions about a group. We can see this in the history of the American South after the end of the War Between the States.

There is an excellent discussion of this vital fact in an article by Tom Mullen, written in a very Rothbardian spirit. Here is what Mullen says: “If you believe the approved narrative, the post-bellum South was a monolithic hive-mind of sheet-wearing racists who couldn’t wait to codify their hatred into law. While this fiction validates statists of every stripe and allows northerners to feel morally superior, the truth is uncomfortable for both: large parts of the South were already desegregating on their own until the government stepped in to stop them.

“That’s right. Before the Jim Crow laws of 1890–1910, tens of thousands of Southern businesses – black and white owned – served both races without a second thought. Streetcars in New Orleans, theaters in Charleston, barbershops in Richmond, saloons in Mobile, and first-class railroad cars from Virginia to Texas routinely mixed Black and White customers. In many cities the integrated establishments were not a courageous minority; they were the majority.

“The free market was producing exactly what free markets always produce: a spectrum of choices, some segregated by private choice, most not. And the non-segregated ones were winning.

This situation changed only when the state governments required segregation: “If you believe the approved narrative, the post-bellum South was a monolithic hive-mind of sheet-wearing racists who couldn’t wait to codify their hatred into law. While this fiction validates statists of every stripe and allows northerners to feel morally superior, the truth is uncomfortable for both: large parts of the South were already desegregating on their own until the government stepped in to stop them.

“That’s right. Before the Jim Crow laws of 1890–1910, tens of thousands of Southern businesses – black and white owned – served both races without a second thought. Streetcars in New Orleans, theaters in Charleston, barbershops in Richmond, saloons in Mobile, and first-class railroad cars from Virginia to Texas routinely mixed Black and White customers. In many cities the integrated establishments were not a courageous minority; they were the majority.

“The free market was producing exactly what free markets always produce: a spectrum of choices, some segregated by private choice, most not. And the non-segregated ones were winning.”

This situation changed only after the state governments required segregation: “Every single segregation statute was a blatant violation of freedom of association and freedom of contract. The Louisiana Separate Car Act didn’t politely ‘ask’ the railroad to add a colored car; it threatened prison for any conductor who let a Black passenger sit in the White section—or a White passenger sit in the Black section if he preferred the company. The Arkansas streetcar law of 1903 didn’t appeal to conscience; it fined drivers $25 (over $800 today) every time they failed to enforce the color line.

“These weren’t ‘public safety’ regulations. They were cartel enforcement mechanisms written by the losers in the marketplace who couldn’t compete with entrepreneurs – Black or White – who treated customers as individuals instead of racial categories.

“White restaurant owners in Mobile didn’t lobby for segregation because they woke up one day disliking black people any more than they previously did. They did it because John Callahan’s café served Black longshoremen at the same counter for the same price and was stealing their lunch trade. White theater owners in Chattanooga didn’t care about ‘racial purity’ until the Bijou started selling orchestra seats to Black patrons and cut their ticket revenue in half. White barbers in Little Rock passed a law banning barbers from cutting the hair of the opposite race because Black barbers had cornered the high-end White clientele.

“And don’t think they only targeted Black competitors. White ‘race traitors’ got it worse. The Richmond streetcar monopoly didn’t just want Black hack drivers gone; they wanted every White hack driver who still picked up Black passengers run out of business, too. Economic historian Jennifer Roback documented that Jim Crow laws systematically raised the cost of doing integrated business until only the state-protected cartel survived.”

Let’s do everything we can to defend genuine freedom of association and oppose all laws requiring either preferential treatment or “segregation.” This is what our great teacher Murray Rothbard wanted us to do.

The post Murray Rothbard on Freedom of Association appeared first on LewRockwell.

You’ve been there.  You wake up, grab some coffee, check LewRockwell, and then begin sorting through domestic and global news.  All of a sudden, a story smacks you in the jaw, and you almost spit up some much-needed caffeinated brew.  

That’s what happened to me when I saw Breitbart’s lead story early Thursday. It didn’t concern the prospect of nuclear war with China or Russia, and it had nothing to do with federal judges cosplaying as royal monarchs. The headlineblared, “Bush Family Plotting Comeback to Retake GOP from Trump.” As I read the words, I could hear the little girl fromPoltergeist IIsquealing, “They’re baaaaack!” As is true of every other horror movie, I knew deep down that the Deep State Bushes would never really go away.

Breitbart was putting a spotlight on areportfrom the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail, in which that publication claims, “Behind the scenes, and still with deep connections around the country, a shadow Republican Party is lying in wait to take over when Trump is gone.” The Mail then references a “former Bush official with a visceral hatred of Trump” who is working with others to support a 2028 “push” that would “end the so-called ‘Bush Exile’ and take back the GOP from the so-called scourge of Trumpism.” Napoleon had a similar plan when he departed the Island of Elba, and look at how well that worked out for him!

The Daily Mail says that “neocons” have been very unhappy with the way that President Trump lambasts their “forever wars” and expensive “interventionism” but now feel “vindicated” by Trump’s “failure” to contain Vladimir Putin. One anonymous Bush official argues explicitly that Trump should have “surrounded himself” with members of the “deep state.” Uff da. I mean, a principal reason why Americans voted for Trump in 2016 is because they had become thoroughly fed up with both Republicans and Democrats running the same presidential and vice presidential candidates every four years: Deep State/Deep State (R) vs. Deep State/Deep State (D). Americans finally realized that voting for the same dip**its — I mean, deep-staters — is a losing strategy. Yet the Bush Republicans want to put the Deep State back in charge and celebrate “competence” or something.

The Daily Mail points out that Bush II was “particularly irked” by President Trump’s decision to break up USAID — you know, the longtime CIA front group that posed as a humanitarian organization while it stirred up chaos in foreign countries, fomented “color revolutions,” and installed NATO/EU/CIA-friendly leaders in the name of “democracy.” Although “Dubya” is biting his tongue right now, the Mail notes that “scores of former Bush officials” have already “left the Republican Party, joining anti-Trump groups like The Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump.” Perhaps the Brits are too far away to know that Americans see those clowns as nothing more than a menagerie of child predators, RINOs, somewhat-closeted Democrats, leftist-globalists, oligarchs, and permanent-government grifters who would trade the welfare of their countrymen for a hundred dollar steak and a Cayman Islands bank account filled with foreign “donations.”

The Mail acknowledges that the Bush dynasty has suffered some defeats as of late — most notably the embarrassing blowout losses for Nikki Haley in the 2024 Republican primaries and for Jeb’s son, George Prescott Bush, in the Texas attorney general race against Ken Paxton. But the British publication seems to have swallowed some of the Democrats’/RINOs’ hype that Jeffrey Epstein’s pimping services for Democrats, royals, tech billionaires, and other assorted deviants will somehow take down President Trump. Should that happen, the Mail concludes, “it could open the door within the Republican Party for the rise of an ‘anti-MAGA’ heir to Bush.”

Thirteen hours after Breitbart first uploaded its story, the most popular reactions in the comments included these darts:

“No chance…zero. They might as well dig up Herbert Hoover.”

“I’ll never vote for another Bush as long as I live. I learned my lesson.”

“No more globalists! The only reason people voted for W, is because he was better than Al Gore and John Kerry — or so we thought.”

“I hate these A-Holes and I’m from Texas. Look, MAGA is the way. It is the only way.”

“The Bushes are Kennebunkport arrogant Yankees. They’re as Texas as a New England clam bake or clam chowder.”

No matter how much the British/American Deep State would love to resurrect the Bush dynasty until it can institute a proper global government to rule over Americans, MAGA voters aren’t likely to bend the knee for Karl Rove and his petulant coalition of castrated RINOs.

The legacy of George W. Bush isn’t pretty: After failing to prevent 9/11, “Dubya” instituted unconstitutional mass surveillance programs under the Patriot Act and led us into two separate multi-decade-long wars that accomplished remarkably little given their cost in blood and treasure. Then he presided over a 2008 financial crisis that nearly broke the global economy and helped put Divider-in-Chief Obama in office for eight years.

His father should never have been Reagan’s running-mate. After riding Reagan’s populist coattails into the White House, Bush I betrayed Reaganomics and laid the groundwork for the blue-collar-job-killing NAFTA that destroyed small towns across the country.

Read my lips: No more Bushes.

The post Read My Lips: No More Bushes appeared first on LewRockwell.

The movie recommended in Chapter XII of ‘The Bible Under the Microscope’ will help us introduce this new series of chapters dedicated to history.. Apparently, this film with mythological undertones is, at its core, a mirror reflecting hidden structures and silent hierarchies. What appears as fiction on the screen could very well be an allegory of what has been happening —in the shadows— for centuries. And it is precisely this thin line between what is told and what is hidden that we will explore in this new series: what versions of history have we been allowed to know, and which have been deliberately buried?

History, just as we have confirmed with religion, is not neutral. It is a constructed narrative, traded for interests, manipulated, and sometimes deliberately distorted. Acknowledging this allows us to better understand how certain readings of the past serve to legitimize restrictions, dogmas, or privileges in the present.

The security of what we believe to know dissolves when we are asked to go beyond the obvious. What is accepted could be a structure to maintain the status quo, sustained by repetition and agreement. Under this suspicion, every statement is examined rigorously: what appears tangible may be hidden behind facades, and what is unquestioned could be the visible part of a broader project.

What I am about to share in this new series of chapters is difficult to admit, but this journey is not simply an exchange of data: it is an assault on what you believe you know. It is a clash with what you have learned since childhood, against the truths that have been repeated to you countless times in the classroom, in textbooks, and through authoritative voices. Lies upon lies—there they are, like puzzle pieces laid out on a desk, accompanied by dates, names, and doctrines that form a story which, in many moments, reveals itself as false or incomplete.

I know this is provocative and may disrupt the beliefs you hold. I have already mentioned that the subject is uncomfortable and challenges certainties that have been given to you. But trust me, within all this information there is truth and honesty. It is not about demolishing beliefs merely for the sake of doubt, but about seeking an understanding that can withstand scrutiny: the truth does not fear verification, and wisdom is not solidified without examination.

If you have doubts, I invite you to investigate and study. Not to obey a new dogma, but so that your judgment is fueled by evidence—so that you can construct, with your own hands and your own thinking, a more complex and more faithful view of reality. In this process, there is no betrayal—only an act of openness: a conversation between what you believed and what is yet to be discovered.

Before we begin, it is worth clarifying that the goal is not to pursue a radical or offensive stance; on the contrary, we aim to avoid any belligerent tone and to maintain a respectful attitude. The main objective is to learn, to know, and to rigorously investigate those little-known aspects that can clarify, even if only partially, the overall picture of our history. For those who may feel addressed, it is guaranteed that the individuals involved in this research demonstrate a clear commitment to respect for all races, cultures, and beliefs. What is delicate and thorny in this topic should not distract us from the essential purpose: to seek and present the facts with clarity and responsibility.

Introduction and Context

The information provided here is based on an extraordinary English book, “The History of the House of Rothschild” by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, published in 2007. This history, which begins around 1743, spans just over 250 years, but its knowledge offers a comprehensive understanding of what is truly happening in the world. As a result of this information, many things can be understood, even if it may come as a shock to existing knowledge and consciousness. It is a story of power based on money, of global domination, and of world governance.

I want to reiterate, as clearly as possible, that the words expressed here are not intended to attack or offend any race or belief. We affirm that all races belong to our same species. Based on the knowledge gained from the series published about the Bible, I suspect that, just as in ancient times, the tendency to divide and confront human beings remains active. History seems to repeat itself: divide, finance both sides, and pit them against each other, as was done during times of human sacrifices. I do not blame anyone; I believe we must be clever enough to understand the game that these beings are playing with our species. I suspect that, behind these events, they still remain present, as the similarities with certain aspects of the Bible are truly astonishing.

To maintain objectivity, the chosen approach will be a chronological description of absolutely verifiable facts and events, which can be confirmed as long as the internet remains accessible. However, I must mention that today it is already difficult to find non-official information. Therefore, the period we will analyze in this chapter covers the years from 1743 to 1798.

The Origins: Mayer Amschel Bauer and the Red Sign

The story begins in 1743 with the birth in Frankfurt (Germany) of Mayer Amschel Bauer, of Ashkenazi Jewish origin.

His father, Moses, was a moneylender and owner of a “Counting House” (an accounting and financial business). He placed a red sign with the symbol of the hexagram, the six-pointed star, on the entrance door of his office—a sign he knew well: It was common at the time to distinguish homes and businesses by means of a sign or symbol, as street numbers were not common. Jews often used these distinctive symbols in Eastern Europe, and the hexagram was a Jewish identification symbol in some communities before it became the universal symbol of Zionism.

This “red sign” gave rise to the family name. Rothschild in German means Rot (red) and Schild (sign). For Mayer, symbols held decisive importance; it is very likely he already participated in secret rituals, influenced by his father’s knowledge. He was very clear about what he was pursuing; he knew the current pacts perfectly and understood the plan devised over millennia, which they, for reasons still unexplained to us, had been chosen to execute. A plan that, as we will see, was a project of control and world domination. While it is not difficult to suspect who might be behind all this, once we examine the topic of religion in the series *The Bible Under the Microscope*, located in the Forbidden Files section.

The hexagram is today visible on monuments, on the dollar bill, on the Pope’s hat, and on the flag of Israel.

In the 1760s, Mayer worked for the Oppenheimer family bank in Hanover, Germany, becoming very successful in business and a minor partner. There, he became familiar with General Von Storf. After his father’s death, Mayer returned to Frankfurt to take charge of the family business.

The Accumulation of Power and Wealth

General Von Storf was assigned to the court of Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau. This was one of Europe’s wealthiest royal houses, which had accumulated its riches by leasing soldiers (mercenaries) to foreign countries at war, earning extraordinary profits.

Mayer Rothschild, the great merchant, saw a significant business opportunity. Under the pretext of selling valuable coins and trinkets to the prince at reduced prices, he attempted to approach the prince himself. The prince was satisfied, and Rothschild offered him participation in any other venture he might propose—an approach that would eventually lead to complete dependence of the monarchy and governments on his economic power.

Rothschild discovered that lending money to governments and royalty was more profitable than to individuals, since the loans were larger and secured by the nation’s taxes. This discovery opened an incredible source of opportunities to craft his plan and explains why all governments in the world are in debt, despite the ability to issue their own currency. Yet, countries remain tied to the largest bank in the world owned by the Rothschild family.

In 1769, the prince authorized Mayer to hang a sign identifying him as “M. Rothschild assigned to the court by His Highness Prince William of Hanau.”

Before continuing, let’s look at some strange and curious family details, because one of the traits of this dynasty is marrying within their own family and not mixing with outsiders. This detail strongly reminded me of the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., where marriages often occurred within the same kinship.

In 1743, Mayer married Gutle Schnapper. Naturally, they are all Jewish—meaning, of course, people of that origin.

In 1773, Amsel was born—an important figure in the story—the first son of Mayer. Like all his siblings who followed him, he would enter the family business at age 12. In the next chapter, I will share some of the practices they use to manage this family clan and the certain requirements, laws, criteria, or principles that everyone must strictly follow.

In 1774, Salomon Mayer Rothschild was born. I won’t focus much on the births, but I want you to understand that as the plan develops, a dynasty is being created that later involves links with other families. This is because new people began to appear—motivated by financial, political, and military interests—and, of course, always connected to royalty or high-power families with great prestige. They start distributing power, but always within a very small group.

The Creation of the Illuminati

In the year 1770, a pivotal year, Mayer Rothschild drafted a project for the creation of the Illuminati and entrusted its development and formulation to Adam Weishaupt, a Crypto-Jewish Ashkenazi of Roman Catholic faith. A Crypto-Jewish Ashkenazi is a person of Ashkenazi descent (Jewish ancestry from Central/Eastern Europe) who, outwardly, appeared Christian or of another religion but secretly concealed or practiced Jewish customs. Thus, this lodge was born, whose name translates as “the Enlightened,” referring to individuals who have achieved enlightenment/reason.

On May 1, 1776, Adam Weishaupt officially completed the organization of the Illuminati. Its documented and written purpose was:

• To divide the goyim (all non-Jews) through political, economic, social, and religious means. This also included Jews whom they did not consider as such. They began by dividing all non-Jews via these means, artificially creating conflicts, wars, labor disputes, social upheavals, ethnic riots, and all kinds of revolts.
• To generate conflict among the goyim by financing weapons for both sides involved in the conflicts.
• The ultimate goal was to destroy national governments and religious institutions.

In the same year, Weishaupt infiltrated the secret Masonic order and established the Lodge of the Grand Orient as its secret headquarters, whose emblem was “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” precisely the official motto of the French Republic and its national holiday celebrated on July 14. By order of Mayer Rothschild, Weishaupt recruited 2,000 followers, including the most intelligent men in arts, literature, education, science, finance, and industry, and instructed them in methods to control the population:

1. Use money and sexual bribery to gain control over influential men in government, and once compromised, subjugate them through blackmail and threats (financial ruin, public exposure, death).
2. Establish connections with students of exceptional ability in colleges and universities, training them in international relations with the central idea that only a world government can end wars. (We now know they are the ones who produce the wars; this was just an excuse). This specialized training was provided to selected individuals through scholarships funded by the Illuminati. This explains the origins of university scholarships and the fact that all universities, especially the most renowned, are financed by them — a project that began with the Illuminati.
3. Use these controlled or trained individuals as agents within all governments, positioning them as “experts and specialists behind the scenes” to advise policies aligned with the secret plan of the Illuminati conspiracy.You may have already realized that those who appear to govern are not truly in control; they merely hold political positions and owe favors in the form of money, business interests, or other benefits. They serve only an apparent role, while behind the scenes, puppets are used as agents in all governments. Major institutions you know—such as the UN, WHO, UNESCO, etc.—were all created by them with the same purpose.
4. Achieve absolute control over the press (the only social communication medium at the time) so that all news and information can be skewed, twisted, altered, manipulated, and controlled to induce the masses to believe whatever they want, including the idea of a world government.

Everything you see on television, hear on the radio, read in newspapers, or magazines is manipulated. Independent and truthful information can only be found through independent channels—something increasingly difficult since 2020, when censorship began to dominate the internet. This explains how many events are inexplicable, how realities are fabricated from nothing, and how, overnight, shocking news spreads while the masses, mesmerized by mainstream media, believe it to be true.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Dynasty That Changed the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

On a Saturday morning, August 1, 2021, my boss uncharacteristically showed up at my workplace, two acres of community gardens. Getting right to the point, she asked if I knew someone named John Schroeder. I dealt with hundreds of people at the gardens and knew countless more from other settings. I couldn’t recall anyone with that name.

I asked why she wanted to know. She said someone who had so identified himself had emailed her that I was spreading Covid and “vaccine” misinformation on the Internet.

I told her, “with all due respect,” that I knew far more about The Virus, the shots and the law than she did and would discuss these with her for as long as she was willing. I added that, though Rutgers University, our employer, was about to require all staff to inject, I would never comply, they’d have to fire me and I’d sue them if they did.

To her credit, my boss, a late-thirties Public Health PhD candidate who bought the “Pandemic” hype, understood what Schroeder and many others didn’t: the First Amendment protects free speech. Besides, everything I had written about the shots was true. My semi-government-funded employer couldn’t restrict what I wrote and said, especially on my own time.

Not gonna lie, though: I often mocked the lockdowns and masks in the presence of those I encountered at the gardens. Aren’t college campuses supposed to be bastions of discourse? Isn’t this the ostensible reason for academic tenure?

I requested my boss to send me my accuser’s email. She did but deleted the sender’s address so as to prevent direct contact.

FW: Mark Oshinskie — Director of New Brunswick Community Farm

From: John Schroeder
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mark Oshinskie — Director of New Brunswick Community Farm

The director of the J&J funded community farm in New Brunswick is a rabid anti-vaxxer who is posting vaccine and covid disinformation on his Medium page.

Please see here:

https://forecheck32.medium.com/vaxx-time-for-bonzo-251501c8b742

And generally here:

https://forecheck32.medium.com/

You are each now on notice of this and I should think something should be done about his continued interest in posting dangerous misinformation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

John

—

I’m still not sure John Schroeder wasn’t a pseudonym used by someone I knew. Because I often criticized the Covid Scam and have publicly taken other non-PC stances, numerous individuals in my NPR-loving town hate me. A difference between them and me is that when I disagree with someone, I let that person know directly. I don’t contact their boss and “tell on” them.

If the Schroeders of the world strongly believed in lockdowns, closures, masks, tests and shots, why were they so afraid to defend their views in the marketplace of ideas?

—

Regardless, I didn’t see how pointing out that the lockdowns and shots would cause more harm than good made me “rabid.” Although the lockdowns caused extensive, permanent damage and the shots failed to stop infection or spread and millions of vaxxers have died or been injured, Schroeder and his ilk still falsely tell themselves that the lockdowns and shots saved millions of lives. It’s easy to think you’re right if you rely on bogus statistics, only hear one side of a story and never consider opposing arguments.

Since March 2020, Schroeder and many other lockdown, mask and jab supporters have believed that calling opponents names like “grandma killer,” “Trumper” and “anti-vaxxer” marginalized their targets and simultaneously placed the name-callers on some self-imagined higher moral and intellectual ground. Instead, name-calling should discredit name-callers. I didn’t need to call those who supported the vaxxes, names. I methodically enumerated and explained the lockdowns, school closures, masks and shots’ shortcomings and their financial, social and human costs.

And though “anti-vaxxer” was intended as a disqualifying insult, being called one didn’t bother me. I believe all of the ostensible vaccines are overrated, have seriously injured many children and that parents should be allowed to refuse to have their kids injected. I’m willing to discuss this topic with those who disagree, as long as they remain calm. I’ll first ask which pro-vaxx studies they’ve read and what they know about these studies’ designs. Then I’ll point out the sharp drop in incidence of diseases decades before vaccinations began.

I wondered what Schroeder thought “should be done” to me. I suspect he copied the garden’s vaxx-making funder, Johnson & Johnson, hoping they’d fire me. This outcome was unlikely. I knew a bunch of J & J employees who volunteered at the gardens. We had gotten along well as we worked alongside each other. I think they would have said I was the opposite of rabid.

And those J & J shots didn’t work so well. Unsurprisingly, none of the shots did.

—

Brainwashed by panic-mongering media, those who supported lockdowns, school closures, masks, asymptomatic testing and vaccines have been wrong throughout. Living among so many fearful, illogical, low-information and ultimately, destructive individuals bothered me. It’s hard to forget the extent of the groupthink, how imperious people and governments became, and how, collectively, millions of people were either threatened with firings or actually lost jobs because they didn’t inject.

Although I didn’t hide from others or wear a mask and I got a religious exemption from the shots, I couldn’t avoid being censored. Medium removed not only my lockdown and shot criticisms, it also removed dozens of my other, unrelated posts. They digitally “disappeared” me, presumably, given the timing, because Schroeder reported me to them. That’s when I found Substack.

—

The Scamdemic was built on a relentless barrage of propaganda. In order to deceive the public with its biologically, logically and logistically untenable virus-crushing strategies, the propagandists tried to comprehensively block or erase messages criticizing lockdowns, school closures, masks, asymptomatic tests and vaxxes. The propagandists hated dissent. Allowing the public to consider such messaging would have caused a critical mass of the public to question the “mitigation” measures and jabs and ended the Scamdemic.

From the beginning, it was obvious that various entities, later labeled the Censorship Industrial Complex, had conspired to present a one-sided viral narrative. These entities included federal, state and local governments, the media and a group of government-sponsored, university-employed, euphemistically named entities, purportedly tasked to thwart “Misinformation” but really designed to prevent the public from learning the truth about the Covid Scam. Mum was the word.

Clandestine censorship subsequently became a matter of record. Emails showed that Biden’s henchmen and bureaucrats pressured the media and websites to deplatform, suspend or shadowban those who criticized the lockdowns, school closures, masks, tests and shots. This censorship went far beyond “influencers” with sizable followings. It also encompassed legions of social media users who were suspended by Facebook, LinkedIn, et al. for questioning the Covid “mitigation” or later, the shots.

—

It’s been painfully clear that many with whom I’ve discussed the Covid mitigation and shots had never heard basic facts that revealed the Scam. As four of many examples, most lockdown and shot backers have never heard that: 1) many said to have died ‘“from Covid” really died of other causes, especially old age, 2) many ostensible Covid victims were medicated or ventilated to death, 3) the PCR tests used to detect “Covid” were never supposed to be used for diagnosis because these tests were wildly overinclusive and 4) vaxx efficacy and risk stats were badly distorted via statistical, definitional chicanery I’ve detailed in prior posts.

In a sixth-grade unit regarding newspapers, our teacher, Mrs. Kasper, told the class that newspapers were valuable because they presented both sides of a story, using more facts than TV or radio reports used. In pre-Scamdemic decades, many newspapers, including the major ones, published my commentaries on various topics, even though I had expressed minority views. I remember, in the mid-1970s, seeing a local nun deliver a forceful anti-abortion, Voice of the People, message after CBS’s New York City affiliate’s Six O’clock News. That equal time ethic is long gone.

In March, 2020, newspapers wouldn’t publish my, or anyone else’s, lockdown, school closure, mask and Covid potlatch criticisms. At that time, we Covid dissidents comprised a tiny slice of the population, probably less than 10%. Some of these conscientious objectors were MDs, Public Health PhDs or, as I was, attorneys.

While we objectors wanted to engage in dialogue, public debate didn’t occur. Unheard by most, I shouted along with other dissidents into gale force winds of government and media demagoguery. Richard Nixon spoke of The Silent Majority. Lockdown and vaxx opponents were The Silenced Minority.

Without seeing lockdown skepticism in print or on electronic media, many succumbed to peer pressure and accepted or acquiesced to the prevailing Viral Terror narrative. If instead of such mob mentality, some dissenting voices were allowed to be heard, as in the movie, Twelve Angry Men, many people would have, for the first time, considered the Covid response’s flaws. Such adversarial exchanges used to be common on TV news shows as 60 Minutes or the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour.

While many people are willing to dance, most are too shy to get on the floor until others do. Similarly, as news purveyors blocked Covid skepticism, news sources prevented others who might have added their anti-lockdown and anti-jab voices from seeing that Covid skeptics like me were out on the floor, assailing these interventions.

Beyond reluctance to stand alone, supporting the Covid overreaction was cast as a moral imperative. The ads told us to “Stay Home, Save Lives” and “Your mask protects me.” In order to be seen, or see oneself, as “good” or “kind,” one was told that they had to buy into all of the mitigation measures and shots.

But if the masses had seen and heard that others sensibly opposed this unprecedented overreaction, some of the reluctant Covid rule followers who considered themselves “the good people” would have concluded that not only was it OK, but far better for humanity, to reject the Covid theater and later, to oppose injecting billions of people with an unnecessary, experimental substance than it was to support any of the overreaction. The lockdown supporters, mask wearers and vaxx takers signaled virtue. In contrast, those who opposed these measures advanced public welfare.

If, in particular, more celebrities or clergy had publicly observed all of the Covid theater’s damage, the dysfunctional wall of obedience and censorship would have been breached and then, collapsed and been overrun. The few in either occupation who spoke against lockdowns, closures, masks or shots didn’t receive column space or airtime.

Read the Whole Article

The post Covid Censors Mending Fences, Poorly appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yes, Israel, Ukraine, NATO and all other countries that receive military or financial aid are parasites, not allies, in two ways. 1. No other country has the resources to come to our defense, and 2. it is impossible for us to be invaded because of our oceans. The money we spend on other countries is nothing less than a “go to hell” message to the American people from the Military Industrial Complex aka Zionist Jewish Lobby aka Deep State and our government.

The American people were sold out by the President and most members of Congress. If they were honest, you would have the greatest economy and lifestyle in the world, guaranteed.

Christian Churches that promote Zionism are a powerful political force. It is difficult for me to understand how Christian Ministers if they were honest and devout could promote Zionism when its evil actions are so contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Just remember that we have been in almost constant Wars for Profit during the last eighty years, without a single Declaration of War.  None were for National Security. We lost 105,000 Military Dead, and millions were killed in other countries, causing the world to hate us. The American People lost lives and their standard of Living while our “officials” profited. The only legal solution is to vote most incumbents in both parties out of office. They are all criminals.

If President Trump was to guarantee Israel our support for 20 years, he should be impeached forthwith. Israel has had the gall to ask for a 20-year guarantee of support.  If Trump was to sell our souls, lives and treasure to Israel for any time period, I would expect a revolt.

I have supported President Trump, but this would be the last straw. The American people have been given the Purple Shaft With Barbed Wire Clusters. In other words we have been screwed, big time, by those we trusted and elected, who turned out to be criminals and traitors without morals or ethics.

This is the time in my life as a writer when additional words are not required in a paper. I have told the  simple truth, and if I was considered influential it would lead to my demise by the Jewish Lobby aka Deep State and our government. But my readers already know this truth. Recent polls show that over half of our population now objects to our support of Israel.

Through my writings, I am merely reinforcing the rise in awareness by all the people of the high levels of corruption within the criminal enterprise known as our government. Everybody is feeling the effects of the satanic control exercised by Israel in their daily lives. My writings have offered a peaceful solution, but it requires a strong resolve of moral character by our leaders. Our leaders have sworn an oath to protect our rights, and if this is not their primary objective, they must be removed, one way or the other.

The post Traitors in Government Fund Israel, Ukraine, and NATO Parasites appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the 27 years Karol Wojtyla reigned as Christ’s Vicar on earth, an unprecedented tenure beginning in 1978 and ending with his death in 2005, he managed to accomplish a great many things, not the least being countless pastoral visits (129 to be exact) around the globe, including places which had only the most tenuous connection to Catholic-Christianity. But of all those lands and countries touched by the papal presence, there were three in particular that he needed to see more than once.

These were Poland, his native land, to which he would go nine times, in large part to help bring about the end of Soviet hegemony in Europe. This was followed by France, eldest daughter of the Church, to which he would go eight times, raising repeatedly the matter of her baptismal promises. Finally, there was the United States, of course, a nation no pope could ill-afford not to visit, which he did seven times, reminding us each time not to forget where our freedoms came from and why.

But setting aside Poland and the United States, as important as those visits were, it seems to me that the eight visits to France represent perhaps the most consequential exercise of all—in terms, that is, of trying to reorient the soul of France back to God, to that absolute attraction for whom we all lost a very long time ago thanks to the sin of Adam.

And pursuant to that end, he would unfailingly point to the sacrament of baptism as the necessary means, the perfect point of entry, as it were, in the Church’s effort to reignite in the soul precisely that primal attraction which Original Sin had nearly wiped out altogether. And not only within the individual soul, as though one’s relation to God were a purely private affair, but in the outward forms of life as well, which equally evince hunger and thirst for God, for that wholeness of life which only baptism can bring. Here we see the enduring relevance of that larger and more public dimension to human life which we rightly call culture.

Faith, in other words, whose very enfleshment creates culture, becomes the key ingredient in human history. “A society which has lost its religion,” Christopher Dawson warns, “becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture.” And because it is of the very essence of faith to wish to raise up all that has to do with man, including the social order, and thus elevate it all onto the plane of glory, the Church cannot remain indifferent to culture, cannot leave it in its wounded and unredeemed state.

But why did the pope think it necessary to go to France quite so often? Eight visits to a country clearly and undeniably in decline, indeed, in a kind of moral and, yes, even demographic freefall? Why all the attention? Why not simply write it off as yet another failed state, not unlike so many third-world implosions we regularly hear about on the news? Might it have something to do with her being “the eldest daughter of the Church”? And what does that tell us about her place in the economy of grace? I mean, does the honorific still apply if a nation appears to have fallen into apostasy?

But that is just the point, isn’t it? France really is the purest distillate of what postmodern man actually looks like. It is not a pretty sight. A nation without God will inevitably turn on itself, divesting its people of those protections guaranteed by God. And so if the Church were to succeed in calling France back to the source of her greatness, her identity in Christ, arresting thereby her fall into infidelity, how wonderfully contagious might her return then prove to be in bringing other erstwhile Catholic nations back to God.

It is well to remind ourselves that it was on his very first visit, in May of 1980, that the Holy Father spoke of France in a way unlike any other nation, reminding her of history’s high regard for her role as the eldest of all the Church’s daughters. And why is that? Because, owing to her having been the very first among the peoples of Europe to embrace the Faith and the hope of Jesus Christ, she is not only entitled to wear that particular crown but she has also been most earnestly enjoined by Christ to give witness to that fact by evangelizing others.

And what use had she made of it but to spread the message of Christ far and wide, urging her pagan neighbors to go and do likewise. Did it especially please the people of France, I wonder, to have received such a warm congratulatory message from the pope and Bishop of Rome?

He would again stoke that particular flame of French pride when, in 1996, he returned to celebrate 1,500 years of her Catholic-Christian identity. On that day spent celebrating the great jubilee of the baptism of the Frankish King Clovis in the year 496, he particularly commended France for her missionary outreach to the world, for producing so rich a repository of saints and martyrs along the way.

But then, just as the pope was about to conclude his panegyric, the mood suddenly changed. “Dear France,” he began,

permit me to ask this question. We are here to celebrate the fifteenth centenary of a baptism, which you like to think of as your baptism, as the baptism of France. What have you done with your baptism? What has become of it? What have you made of your baptism?

Now there’s an icebreaker for you. And not a few of the French who were there felt the sting of it—including most especially the President of France himself, Jacques Chirac, who had been at great pains in welcoming the Holy Father in the name of a “republican and secular France,” thus erasing an entire millennium and a half of French history.

If the event of a king’s baptism, his putting on Christ both for himself and for all those disparate tribes whom divine providence entrusted him to unite and look after, is not to be dismissed as unreal and therefore unimportant, then it is a huge historical mistake not to acknowledge the connection. It shows how vastly ignorant so much of France is of her own past. Between governance and God, human culture and Christian faith, a nexus had long ago been struck, the fruit of which became Western Christian Civilization. By not knowing that fact, or by heaping scorn and derision upon it, France has made the most egregious confession of ignorance. She has uprooted the very tree in whose branches she had been sitting for centuries.

It was in August of the following year, 1997, that the pope would return to his eldest daughter, traveling this time to Paris for World Youth Day, during which he would strike a very different note. There he spoke to many thousands of eager young pilgrims.

“Do you know,” he asked them, “what the sacrament of baptism does to you?” He told them:

It means that God acknowledges you as his children and transforms your existence into a story of love with him. He conforms you to Christ so that you will be able to fulfill your personal vocation. He has come to make a pact with you and he offers you his peace. Live from now on as children of the light who know that they are reconciled by the Cross of the Savior!

What might the young people of France yet do with their baptismal promises? And what are we going to do with ours?

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Without Faith There Is No Future appeared first on LewRockwell.

Leo Tolstoy, one of humanity’s authentic literary geniuses, wrote the masterpiece on Gospel Nonviolence, The Kingdom of God is Within you, which upon reading it was the critical and final step in Gandhi’s conversion to nonviolence, as well as in the conversions of untold numbers of other human beings to explicitly Gospel Nonviolence. Tolstoy was also a seasoned beekeeper. Throughout his writings he employs bees and their ways to illuminate a deeper understanding of or solution to seemingly intractable human spiritual and practical problems. For example, below he addresses one of the most insoluble and destructive of the conundrums facing humanity

“Men in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging in a cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the branch is temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off and find themselves a habitation. Each of the bees knows this, and desires to change her own and the others’ position, but no one of them can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all start off at once, because one hangs on to another and hinders her from separating from the swarm, and therefore they all continue to hang there. It would seem that the bees could never escape from their position, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in the state’s conception of life, can never escape it. And there would be no escape for the bees, if each of them were not a living, separate creature, endowed with wings of its own. Similarly there would be no escape for men, if each were not a living being endowed with the faculty of entering into the Gospel’s conception of life.

If every bee who could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too, would never be stirred, and the swarm would never change its position. And if the man who has mastered Jesus’ conception of life would not, without waiting for other people, begin to live in accordance with this conception, mankind would never change its position. But only let one bee spread her wings, start off, and fly away, and after her another, and another would follow, and the clinging, inert cluster would become a freely flying swarm of bees. Just in the same way, only let one man look at life as the Gospel teaches him to look at it, and after him let another and another do the same, and the destructive enchanted circle of existence in the state conception of life, from which there seemed no escape, will be broken through.

But men think that to set all men free by this means is too slow a process, that they must find some other means by which they could set all men free at once. It is just as though the bees who want to start and fly away should consider it too long a process to wait for all the swarm to start one by one; and should think they ought to find some means by which it would not be necessary for every separate bee to spread her wings and fly off, but by which the whole swarm could fly at once where it wanted to. But that is not possible; till a first, then a second, then a third then a hundredth bee spreads her wings and flies off of her own accord, the swarm will not fly off and will not begin its new life. Till every individual man makes Jesus’ conception of life his own, and begins to live in accord with it, there can be no solution of the problem of violence and war, enmity and deception in human life, and no establishment of a new form of life.”

Question:

Have you personally taken one or many steps away from the state’s conception of existence with its use and justification of violence and war, enmity and deception? Have you taken one step or many steps away your violent religion’s spiritual and moral endorsement of, support of and fostering of the state’s conception of existence?

Has the step or have the steps you have taken away from the state’s conception of existence only been mental and intellectual or did they have physical and incarnational components to them?

Does anyone outside yourself—even if your steps have been only mental or intellectual— know of your steps away from the swarm of  ceaseless violence that is the condition of the state, which follows automatically from the state’s conception of existence

The post Freedom From the State’s Conception of Existence, or Having the Courage of a Bee to be faithful to the Nonviolent Jesus and His Way of Nonviolent Love. appeared first on LewRockwell.

The chihuahuas of war will keep barking while the SMO will keep rollin’ along.

The Circus Ringmaster’s 28-point “peace plan” for Ukraine may be seen as a pet seal splashing around in a pond to amuse the galleries. And up next, we move to another attraction.

Yet if taken seriously – and that requires not a pinch but a barrel of salt – it’s like a twin to the Circus Ringmaster’s “plan” for Gaza, this time with the objective of snatching a pitiful “victory” from the jaws of the Empire of Chaos’s own, de facto strategic defeat.

Let’s check the reactions. Here you will find Larry Johnson’s analysis – which I share – , but most of all the video of the stunning two-hour interview  we had mid-week in Moscow with stellar Maria Zakharova, the most articulated Foreign Ministry spokeswoman on the planet.

What Mrs. Zakharova essentially told us is that by mid-week there was no Russian reaction because Moscow had not received anything concrete: “When we have some official information, when we receive it via a relevant channel, naturally, we will always be open to work.”

The same applied to the Kremlin. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “No, we haven’t received anything officially. We see some innovations. But officially, we haven’t received anything. And there hasn’t been any substantive discussion of these items.”

The first actual, terse response that came from President Putin was stunningly graphic: in camouflage, visiting a command center, and stressing that the set up in Kiev can no longer be described as a “political leadership” because it’s just “a criminal organization”.

After a few frantic days buried in a tsunami of spin concocted by NATOstan mainstream media, supporting but essentially against the 28-pointer, someone in Washington – and not necessarily Russian middleman Kirill Dmitriev – may have delivered it, officially, to the Kremlin.

So this past Friday we had, finally, President Putin’s own response, during a session of the permanent members of Russia’s Security Council.

The key Putin points must be stressed:

Alaska: “The main point of the Alaska summit, its main purpose, was that during the talks in Anchorage we confirmed that, despite some difficult issues and complexities, we nevertheless agreed with these proposals and were prepared to demonstrate the requested flexibility.”

Global South reaction: “We provided detailed information to all our friends and partners in the Global South on these matters – including China, India, the DPRK, South Africa, Brazil, many other countries, and, of course, the CSTO states. All our friends and partners, and I want to emphasise this – without exception – supported these potential arrangements.”

U.S. non-response: “However, after the negotiations in Alaska, we have seen a certain pause on the part of the U.S., and we know this is due to Ukraine’s de facto refusal to accept the peace plan proposed by President Trump. I believe this is precisely why a new version has emerged – essentially an updated plan consisting of 28 points.” Note that “updated” is the key operative word here – as in an extension of Alaska.

What the 28-pointer really means: “We have the text. We received it through our existing channels of communication with the U.S. Administration. I believe it too could form the basis of a final peace settlement, but this text is not being discussed with us in substance. And I can suggest why.

The reason, I believe, remains the same: the U.S. Administration still cannot secure Ukraine’s consent – Ukraine rejects it.

Evidently, Ukraine and its European allies remain under illusions and still dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. I think this position is rooted not so much in a lack of competence – I will leave this topic aside for now – but rather in the absence of objective information about the real situation on the ground.”

Expanding on the EU and Ukraine: “All things considered, neither Ukraine nor Europe grasp the consequences of this path. Just one very recent example – Kupyansk. Not long ago, on 4 November – just two weeks ago – officials in Kiev publicly stated that no more than 60 Russian servicemen were present in the city, and that within the next few days, as they claimed, Ukrainian forces would fully unblock it.

But I would like to inform you that already at that moment, on 4 November, the city of Kupyansk was practically entirely secured by the Russian Armed Forces. Our guys were, as they say, simply finishing the job – clearing the remaining streets and neighbourhoods. The fate of the city had already been fully determined.

What does this tell us? Either the Kiev leaders do not have objective information about the situation at the front, or, having it, they are simply unable to assess it objectively.”

The SMO will go on: “If Kiev does not want to discuss President Trump’s proposals and rejects them, then they – and their European war-instigators – must understand that the situation in Kupyansk will inevitably be repeated on other key sectors of the front. Perhaps not as quickly as we would like, but the outcome will be inevitably repeated.”

The inevitable conclusion: “On the whole, this is acceptable to us, as it leads to achieving the objectives of the special military operation by military means. But, as I have said many times before, we are also ready for peace negotiations and for resolving problems by peaceful means. However, this requires a substantive discussion of all details of the proposed plan.We are ready for that.”

Deconstructing an incoherent mish-mash

So here we have finally come back to the essentials – what everyone with an IQ over room temperature following the imperial proxy war against Russia in Ukraine already knows: Russia is ready for peace, but in Putin’s own words, “is also satisfied with the current dynamics of the SMO”. Because this is leading – slowly but surely, “to the achievement of its goals” in the battlefield.

Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer – assuming it was Dmtriev and Witkoff holed up in Miami for three days; and then lowly neo-con Marco Rubio and zero-expert on anything Zionist asset Jared Kushner (!) chiming in – the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.

What if it was designed to be exactly that?

The new frantic spin is that the sweaty sweatshirt in Kiev has been given an ultimatum by Trump 2.0: under a new “aggressive timeline”, he has to get on board. Or else.

Kiev’s backers – the proverbial assortment of chihuahuas comprising the EU, the European Commision (EC) and “leaders” in selected capitals – have rejected the 28-pointer, and so did Kiev, right from the start.

The 28-pointer indeed manages the feat of assembling an incoherent mish-mash that is unworkable not only for Russia but also for the EU/NATO combo. A few examples:

Point 4: “A U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO dialogue will be launched to resolve security issues and promote cooperation”. NATO is a brainchild of the Empire of Chaos. It will never “cooperate” with “existential threat” Russia.

Point 9: “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” That means NATO still ready to attack Russian territory.

Point 10. “The U.S. security guarantee [to Ukraine] comes with conditions: – The U.S. receives compensation.” That’s pure “offer you can’t refuse” Mafia territory.

Point 13: “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

• Gradual lifting of sanctions
• Long-term U.S.–Russia economic cooperation
• Joint ventures in AI, energy, infrastructure, rare earths, and Arctic extraction
• Russia rejoins the G8”

That’s what this is all about, per the Circus Ringmaster himself: grabbing Russian natural resources. Moreover Russia does not need the G8: Moscow’s focus is on BRICS/SCO.

Point 14: “Frozen Russian assets will be allocated as follows:

• $100 billion used to rebuild Ukraine (run by the U.S.)
• The U.S. receives 50% of profits from reconstruction investments
• Europe contributes another $100 billion
• Remaining frozen assets go into a U.S.–Russia joint investment vehicle to deepen economic ties.”

That’s peak Theater of the Absurd: not only the Americans want to use Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine – which they were instrumental in destroying – but their “10 per cent for the Big Guy” turns out to be a hefty 50%.

Point 17: “The U.S. and Russia will extend nuclear arms-control treaties, including New START.” A non-starter: Moscow has been stressing non-stop that arms-control treaties will not be negotiated in relation to the SMO.

Point 21: “Territorial arrangements:

• Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk are recognized as de facto Russian, including by the U.S.
• Parts of Kherson and Zaporozhye become frozen “contact line” zones (also de facto recognition)
• Russia gives up other agreed areas
• Ukraine withdraws from remaining parts of Donetsk; the zone becomes a Russian-recognized neutral buffer
• Russian forces cannot enter the buffer zone.”

Total non-starter – and not only for the EU/NATO-Kiev combo.  Kherson and Zaporozhye, constitutionally, are now fully Russian – and will be liberated on the battlefield.

Point 26: “Full amnesty for all parties for all actions taken during the war: no prosecutions, no war-crimes claims.” Total non-starter: Kiev forced the draft document to use “amnesty” instead of “audit”. Moscow will settle for nothing less that full prosecution of members of the “criminal organization”. Yes, there will be a war crimes tribunal.

Point 27: “The agreement will be legally binding and enforced by a Peace Council chaired by Donald J. Trump.” That’s a Gaza replay. As if Putin and the Russian Security Council would accept a “Peace Council” chaired by a Circus Ringmaster whose expiry date is fast approaching, not to mention be subordinated to the losers in a vicious proxy war. 

About a really intriguing takeaway

One plausible takeaway of the 28-pointer is that the selected oligarchy running the Empire of Chaos continues to run a protection racket – and the only way to salvage the de facto strategic defeat in country 404 is to turn a quick buck.

Another more intriguing, plausible takeaway is that the 28-pointer was never meant to be accepted by the EU-Kiev combo. It’s all about the Circus Ringmaster’s exit strategy from the debacle in Novorossiya.

Trump is already preparing the terrain – as in I tried everything, but Zelensky won’t comply. So it’s now his – and his gang’s – problem only, side by side with the EU chihuahuas. Up next: an immediate change of narrative. What else: the Empire of Chaos cannot manage reality, only narratives.

Trump 2.0 may start to work on improving U.S.-Russia relations – while blame for the collapse of the “peace process” is laid on the EU-Kiev combo. The optics of the 28-pointer P.R. op are everything: packaged as it is asking Moscow to strike a compromise, even as Russia is winning in the battlefield, while making sure the “criminal organization” in Kiev cannot agree to the main provisions.

Provisional endgame: the chihuahuas of war will keep barking while the SMO will keep rollin’ along.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post The 28-Point Theater of the Absurd appeared first on LewRockwell.

The corruption and the lies of the Western narrative are falling out like bodies from a rotten sack.

The corruption fiasco that exploded last week in Ukraine shows beyond any doubt that the Kiev regime, headed up by Vladimir Zelensky, is an unmitigated disgrace and fraud. But it is not just the Kiev regime that is exposed as reprehensible. Its Western sponsors – governments, NATO, and the entire news media – are also outed for the corrupt facade that they are.

Washington may now exploit the chance to force the criminal cabal in Kiev to accept a peace deal that President Trump unveiled this week, as he desperately wants to extricate the United States from a disastrous proxy war. The European rulers, on the other hand, are, for different reasons, more tied to the sinking, stinking ship.

Zelensky, who cancelled elections last year and continues in office by decree rather than democratic mandate, and his inner circle of ministers and business associates have finally been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, allegedly helping themselves to $100 million in graft and kickbacks – all paid for courtesy of Western taxpayers. Still, that figure is only crumbs compared with the billions that have been siphoned off by the regime and its Western backers.

Since the military conflict erupted in Ukraine nearly four years ago, in February 2022, many objective observers have contended that it was a proxy war against Russia for the Western powers in a geopolitical confrontation. Ukraine was only a pawn in the bloody game. An essential driver for the proxy war was the corruption and payoffs to Zelensky and his regime to keep the whole military confrontation going, on the calculation that it would lead to the “strategic defeat of Russia.”

The Western propaganda narrative told by Western governments and the controlled corporate media was an impossible fantasy to believe for any critical observer. The Western public was told that Ukraine and its “brave” comedian-turned-president were standing up to “Russian aggression.” The lie of that absurd morality play was told over and over ad infinitum – the Big Lie technique – to justify the bankrolling of a war that was always futile and indefensible. Millions of casualties on the Ukrainian side and many too on the Russian side could have been spared if the United States and its NATO allies had engaged in diplomacy with Moscow five years ago to resolve historic issues of NATO expansion. They refused because the Western system wanted war.

Skeptics or critics of the Western narrative were shouted down as “Russian stooges”.

Well, now it is incontestable that the Kiev regime is a cesspit of corruption. Even the Western media propaganda machine has been compelled to acknowledge the truth about the rampant sleaze.

But the Western forced acknowledgment of Kiev corruption only goes so far. Incredibly, it is brushed aside as somehow an unfortunate wrinkle, and also as an affair that has little to do with Zelensky. How ridiculous! The man who sits atop the cesspit is somehow deodorized by the Western media as trying to combat the corruption. This is simply a farce on top of a fiasco.

The recent $100 million scandal is played down and covered up by the West because that vice is essential for facilitating the much bigger corruption of the Western war racket to continue.

Astoundingly, only days after the embezzlement scam blew up, Zelensky was hosted in Paris by French President Emmanuel Macron, where they signed a deal for Ukraine to buy 100 Rafale fighter jets. As our columnist Finian Cunningham points out, the sales order could cost a total of $10 billion. That’s a nice boost for the ailing French economy, which Macron will milk for political gain. France’s Dassault company, the maker of the Rafale, gets juicy profits, and no doubt French and Ukrainian fixers will enjoy commissions and kickbacks.

Meanwhile, also this week, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, the former German military minister who has Russophobia surging through her veins, urged the EU nations to bankroll Ukraine for another two years with $165 billion – on top of the $200 billion that the EU has already funneled into Ukraine over the past four years. Incredibly, Von der Leyen made no mention of the corruption that is oozing out of Kiev.

It was only a few sane voices among the European political leaders, such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who condemned the “madness” of continuing to finance a war mafia.

The corruption scandal – even with the Western attempts to play it down – exposes the bigger scandal. The Western states have been fueling a proxy war that has nothing to do with defending democracy, or supposed Western values, or international law from alleged Russian aggression.

The agenda is a criminal project of imperialist confrontation to subjugate Russia using Ukraine to the last Ukrainian. The proxy war has enriched Western military industries and laundered hundreds of billions of dollars and euros from Western taxpayers.

President Trump has the marginal good sense to want out of the racket that his predecessors in Washington engineered. The European political class, however, is so invested in their own lies and Russophobia, they cannot extricate themselves without admitting their criminal schemes. They, therefore, have to keep the racket going by whitewashing Zelensky and the Kiev regime and naysaying any move by Trump to wrap up the failed proxy war.

The paradox is that by prolonging the proxy war, the Western sponsors are buying time for themselves, but the longer the rope on which they will eventually hang themselves in disaster, politically, financially, morally, and perhaps even legally.

After all the grand theft of Western economies to fund a criminal war, Russia is winning it decisively. The last defenses of NATO’s proxy army in Ukraine are crumbling as Russia takes the bastions of Kupyansk and Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk). The corruption and the lies of the Western narrative are falling out like bodies from a rotten sack. Western ideologues, through their imperialist warmongering schemes for hegemony and Russophobic delusions, have destroyed their own economies.

This week saw the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Nuremberg Trials, which prosecuted top Nazi criminals. A similar fate of justice awaits American and European leaders who concocted the war racket in Ukraine to defeat Russia and enrich themselves. In that event, the courts will be the people of the Western states who will furiously demand accountability from their corrupt leaders.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Kiev Regime’s Relentless Corruption Proves the Ukraine Conflict Is a Criminal Western Proxy War Racket appeared first on LewRockwell.

There was another IDF massacre in Gaza on Saturday, reportedly killing dozens of Palestinians.

Israel as usual claimed it was responding to a ceasefire violation by Hamas, but of course there’s absolutely no evidence for this to be found. AP reports that according to the IDF the strikes were launched after a Hamas fighter “shot at troops in southern Gaza,” but that “no soldiers were hurt” in this alleged attack. Not so much as a scratch. So I guess we’re just expected to take Israel’s word for it.

Now check out these western media headlines about the massacre and notice the disgusting spin they are placing on the narrative to normalize the continued slaughter of Palestinians:

• “Israel launches strikes in Gaza ceasefire’s latest test as hospitals say 24 killed,” by AP.
• “Israel launches strikes in Gaza ceasefire’s latest test as hospitals say more than 20 killed,” by NBC News.
• “Israel launches strikes on Gaza in further test of fragile ceasefire,” from Sky News.
• “Israel launches strikes on Gaza in latest test to fragile ceasefire,” from France 24.
• “Israeli Strikes Kill at Least Two Dozen in Gaza Amid Fragile Ceasefire,” from Newsweek.

Do you see what they’re doing here?

The western press see the killing of Palestinians as such a baseline norm that Israel can massacre dozens of people in Gaza and they’ll go, “Gosh I sure hope this doesn’t lead to any violations of the ceasefire!”

When Israel violates Trump’s ceasefire, the mainstream media calls it “testing” the ceasefire.

There is no circumstance in this or in any other universe in which Hamas could kill 24 Israelis and the media would reduce it to Hamas “testing” the ceasefire. https://t.co/QfaJh2N8bR

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) November 22, 2025

It’s never a ceasefire violation to commit mass murder against Palestinians. It’s only ever a “test” of the ceasefire, or something that happens “amid a fragile ceasefire”. If Hamas suddenly attacked and killed dozens of Israelis, these empire propagandists wouldn’t be saying “Hmm I sure hope the fragile ceasefire holds up amid this challenging test.” They’d just call it what it is. And it would be the main news story in the world.

The imperial media have been framing Israel’s ceasefire violations like this the entire time. Just the other day NBC News ran a report about a different IDF massacre in Gaza titled “Israeli airstrikes kill 25 Palestinians in Gaza, rattling fragile ceasefire”. Last month CNN ran a headline claiming “US-brokered ceasefire appears to survive first major test” after Israel killed at least 44 people, when Israel had been violating the ceasefire every single day up to that point.

The mass media have been running egregiously misleading headlines throughout this entire genocide, which has an overwhelmingly distorting effect on public perception in an information environment where skim-reading has become the norm and most social media users share news stories after just reading the headline.

It almost feels silly to point out that the mass media are wildly biased in favor of Israel two years into a genocide which they’ve actively run propaganda cover for in brazen acts of journalistic malpractice from the very beginning. But we can’t let it slip from our attention how evil these imperial spinmeisters are. How racist they are. How mendacious and manipulative they are. However much you hate them, you don’t hate them enough.

These are the people who are informing western perspectives about what’s going on in our world. They aren’t just deceiving the public with dishonest headlines and precipitously slanted reporting which gets loudly amplified by Silicon Valley algorithms, they are writing the stories which get used and cited by AI chatbots and online platforms like Wikipedia which people are increasingly turning to for information about world events. They are polluting the entire information ecosystem with a deluge of propaganda they are churning out day after day, year after year.

These freaks are attacking our minds. They are attacking humanity’s ability to understand its waking reality. They are continuously indoctrinating the public into an ignorant, western supremacist worldview which only values human life when it lives in the correct part of the world, speaks the correct language, practices the correct religion, has the correct skin color, and aligns with the correct geopolitical agendas.

They make everything worse. It’s impossible to have enough disdain for these mass media propagandists.

________________

Check out my new book, Faces Of The Empire: The Battle For Humanity’s Soul.

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post You Don’t Hate The Mass Media Enough appeared first on LewRockwell.

It seems that Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, got fired over leaking news of the 28-point ‘peace plan’. Let’s follow the traces.

On Tuesday the 18th November someone ‘leaked’ to Axios reporter Barak Ravid who then wrote the first story of Trump’s new plan for Ukraine.

Scoop: U.S. secretly drafting new plan to end Ukraine war

The plan’s 28 points fall into four general buckets, sources tell Axios: peace in Ukraine, security guarantees, security in Europe, and future U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine.
…
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is leading the drafting of the plan and has discussed it extensively with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, a U.S. official said.

Shortly thereafter Steve Witkoff made a mistake on Twitter when he sent a response meant for a private direct message to the public side of his account. He soon deleted it but someone had already taken a screenshot.

bigger

On Thursday, the 20th of November, the New York Post mentioned it:

Senior US officials confirm details of 28-point plan to end Ukraine war

The [Marco Rubio] comment came after Axios on Tuesday reported a deal had been reached, citing Putin henchman Kirill Dmitriev, who claimed he worked on the plan with Witkoff.

Senior US officials believe Dmitriev leaked the plan to Axios as a way to put their “their POV out there first [because] it seemed like they were winning,” one of the officials said. “This is just a tit for tat. Always has been.”

Witkoff appeared to have surmised the same in a quickly deleted post to X in response to the article Tuesday night.

“He must have got this from K,” Witkoff wrote of the Axios author, Barak Ravid — apparently meaning to send it as a DM referring to Dmitriev by his first initial.

I seriously doubt that the “K” Witkoff mentions was Kirill Dmitriev. Dimitriev is not a Washington insider. He is unlikely to leak anything to an Israeli mouthpiece at Axios.

Another “K”, intimately involve in all things Kiev is General Keith Kellogg. When the leak happened he still was Trump’s special envoy to Kiev and will have had knowledge of the plan.

A day later after the leak to Axios Kellogg got fired. As Reuters reported on Wednesday:

Exclusive: Trump’s Ukraine envoy Kellogg to leave post in January, sources say

WASHINGTON, Nov 19 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has told associates he plans to leave the administration in January, four sources told Reuters, a departure that would mean the loss of a key advocate for Ukraine in the Trump administration.

Special presidential envoy is a temporary designation, and such envoys in theory must be confirmed by the Senate to stay in their positions past 360 days. Kellogg has indicated that January would be a natural departure point, given existing legislation, said the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations.

His departure will be unwelcome news in Kyiv. The retired lieutenant general was widely viewed by European diplomats, Ukrainians included, as a sympathetic ear in an administration that has at times leaned toward Moscow’s view on the origins of the war in Ukraine.

I doubt that the sources claim to Reuters that Kellogg is leading because of a January deadline. That would be an official reasoning. But The Hill reported on Friday that the White House is dumb on this:

Trump special envoy for Ukraine to leave post

President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, will depart his position in January, the White House confirmed to The Hill on Thursday, as the president has renewed efforts to end Russia’s war against Kyiv.

The White House did not provide any other details about the reasons for the departure of Kellogg, whose role and influence in the Trump administration elicited mixed reactions.
…
He was originally appointed in January as special envoy for Russia and Ukraine, and had earlier advocated conditioning U.S. military aid on Kyiv agreeing to participate in peace talks. Kellogg’s profile was downsized to only focusing on Ukraine when Trump brought in Witkoff to serve as a special envoy to Russia.

In his position, Kellogg was viewed as an advocate for Kyiv in an administration that more closely hewed to the Kremlin’s negotiating position.

Anonymous sources to Reuters, and The Hill, say that Kellogg was leaving because time was running out before he would needed Congress confirmation. The point in time for that would be in January.

But if that is so why wouldn’t the White House confirm it?

And if January is the end-date, why was Kellogg’s replacement already named on Friday?

As the Guardian wrote yesterday:

Zelenskyy says Ukraine has impossible choice as Trump pushes plan to end war

A delegation of senior US military officials led by the army secretary, Dan Driscoll, held talks with Zelenskyy on Thursday in Kyiv. Trump has named Driscoll – Vance’s friend and former classmate – as his newest “special representative”. The group of American generals was likely to fly to Moscow at the end of next week to discuss the “peace plan” with the Kremlin, US sources said.

To summarize:

• The 28-point plan leak to Axios happened on Tuesday.
• Witkoff texting immediately that “K” was the leaker.
• On Wednesday Reuters reports that Kellogg is leaving in January.
• On Thursday The Hill reports that the White House ‘gave no detail’ about his leaving.
• ‘Senior US officials’ obfuscate the issue in the NY Post by claiming that Witkoff’s “K” meant Kirill Dmitriov.
• On Friday The Guardian says that Kellogg’s job and title have already been handed over to someone else.

I will bet a 100 in any currency that it was Kellogg who had leaked the plan. Witkoff complained about it to Trump (or Vance). Kellogg got fired with immediate effect. His replacement is already in. Anonymous claims that Kellogg is leaving for other reasons are obfuscations (by Kellogg himself?) and wrong.

Yesterday Dan Driscol, Kellogg’s replacement, was already briefing European ambassadors in Kiev:

The US army secretary Dan Driscoll briefed ambassadors from Nato nations at a meeting in Kyiv late on Friday, after talks with Zelenskyy and taking a phone call from the White House. “No deal is perfect, but it must be done sooner rather than later,” he told them, according to one person who was present.

The mood in the room was sombre, with several European ambassadors questioning the content of the deal and the way in which the US had conducted the negotiations with Russia without keeping allies informed.

“It was a nightmare meeting. It was the ‘you have no cards’ argument again,” said the source, referring to Trump’s claim that Zelenskyy had no cards to play, during a contentious White House meeting back in February.

Alastair Crooke, who has personal experience in hardcore diplomacy, thinks that the 28-point plan is part of an escalation to press Russia into making concessions:

This set of proposals is not likely to be accepted by the Europeans, Russia or even Zelensky. Their purpose is to dictate a completely new start-point to any negotiation. Any Russian concessions stipulated in the text will be ‘pocketed’ by the US, whilst the rug will be pulled on Russia’s ‘stated principles’. The pressures on Russia will escalate.

In fact, escalation has already begun. Coinciding with publication of the proposals, four long-range US-supplied and targeted ATACMS were fired deep into Russian pre-2014 territory at Voronezh, which is where Russia’s over-the-horizon strategic radars are situated. All were shot down, and Russian Iksander missiles immediately destroyed the launch platforms and killed the 10 launch operators.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has threatened yet more sanctions for Russia, and Trump has indicated that he is ok with Senator Lindsay Graham’s 500% sanctions proposal for those trading with Russia – provided that he, Trump, has complete discretion over the new sanctions package.

The overall aim to these proposals clearly is to corner Putin, and push him off his fundamental principles — such as his insistence on eliminating the root causes to the conflict, and not just the symptoms. There is no hint in this paper of any recognition of root causes [expansion of NATO and missile emplacements] beyond the vague promise of a “dialogue [that] will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development”.

Blah, blah, blah.

It seems that escalation is ahead. Russia will need to consider how to militarily deter the US effectively, yet without starting up the steps of the escalatory ladder to WW3 …

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Kellogg Fired Over Leaking 28-Point Plan – Proposal Designed To Trap Putin appeared first on LewRockwell.

This was first pointed out by Yale’s professor of comparative and foreign law, James Q. Whitman, on 13 December 2016, under the headline “Why the Nazis studied American race laws for inspiration”. It opened:

On 5 June 1934, about a year and half after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich, the leading lawyers of Nazi Germany gathered at a meeting to plan what would become the Nuremberg Laws, the centrepiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi race regime. The meeting was an important one, and a stenographer was present to take down a verbatim transcript, to be preserved by the ever-diligent Nazi bureaucracy as a record of a crucial moment in the creation of the new race regime.

That transcript reveals a startling fact: the meeting involved lengthy discussions of the law of the United States of America. At its very opening, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on US race law and, as the meeting progressed, the participants turned to the US example repeatedly. They debated whether they should bring Jim Crow segregation to the Third Reich. They engaged in detailed discussion of the statutes from the 30 US states that criminalised racially mixed marriages. They reviewed how the various US states determined who counted as a ‘Negro’ or a ‘Mongol’, and weighed whether they should adopt US techniques in their own approach to determining who counted as a Jew. Throughout the meeting the most ardent supporters of the US model were the most radical Nazis in the room.

The record of that meeting is only one piece of evidence in an unexamined history that is sure to make Americans cringe. Throughout the early 1930s, the years of the making of the Nuremberg Laws, Nazi policymakers looked to US law for inspiration. Hitler himself, in Mein Kampf (1925), described the US as ‘the one state’ that had made progress toward the creation of a healthy racist society, and after the Nazis seized power in 1933 they continued to cite and ponder US models regularly.

He expanded that in 2017 into his book from Princeton University Press, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law.

In the article, he observed that

the reality is that, in the early 20th century, the US, with its vigorous and creative legal culture, led the world in racist lawmaking. That was not only true of the Jim Crow South. It was true on the national level as well. The US had race-based immigration law, admired by racists all over the world; and the Nazis, like their Right-wing European successors today (and so many US voters) were obsessed with the dangers posed by immigration.

The US stood alone in the world for the harshness of its anti-miscegenation laws.

Since he teaches comparative and foreign law, he writes with an authority on this topic (the comparative status of America’s versus other nations’ laws regarding race) which falls within his specialty as a historian. Consequently, it is no longer credible to assert that prior to Hitler coming into power in Germany, America’s Government was less racist than was Germany’s. Something in America’s historical background had produced the world’s most racist Government, and Hitler greatly admired that aspect of this Government. I shall hypothesize what the source of this racism might have been:

Although Abraham Lincoln was successful in ending American slavery, the former Dixie states, the Confederacy of slave-states, continued with their racist-supremacist cultural ideology, and at a national level this country needed constantly to make compromises with them in order to proceed together with them as one country. Consequently, “the South” has been and actually is America’s ideological leader. Consequently, too, lynching was legal in America until it was made illegal in the U.S. by the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act of 2022, which made it a federal hate crime. This was passed and signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 29, 2022. Maybe Hitler would not approve of today’s American Government. However, Joe Biden had been the leading Democrat in the U.S. Senate to block enforcement of the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision that was supposed to (but that, due to Biden and Senate Republicans still has failed to) end institutionalized racial segregation in America’s schools. So, even he had a mixed record on this. (And, of course, Trump is even worse than the Democrats, on all issues of racism.)

In any case, America’s Founders aren’t to blame for this. Most of the Members at the U.S. Constitutional Convention wanted to eliminate slavery, but doing that would have meant southern states rejecting the Constitution. So, the slavery problem had to wait until Abraham Lincoln to become resolved. And, at the deeper level of American culture, a substantial amount of racism still persists; and so, in a government that uses popular votes in order to select Government officials, people such as Joe Biden are elected, and people like Teddy Kennedy (who led the opposed side, which favored implementing Brown v. Board of Education) become passed over for higher office (as the lifelong anti-segregationist Bernie Sanders did in his race against Biden).

America’s Founders would still be dissatisfied with what their country has achieved.

Interestingly, Whitman’s father, Martin J. Whitman, led the struggle for honest corporate accounting standards in the U.S.; and, just like Teddy Kennedy lost his battle to enforce the Brown decision, Whitman lost his battle against corporate corruptness.

Furthermore: America’s Founders were, themselves, deeply torn, within themselves, about the ethical issue of racism and supremacism, because in their own time, conservative values dominated throughout the world. On 31 May 1779, during the American Revolution, General George Washington wrote to Major General John Sullivan, who was leading the American Revolution in the western territories (where the indian tribes allied with the British King who had promised them protection in order to get them as allies): “It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more. … You will not by any means listen to any overture for peace before the total ruin of their settlements is affected.” He wasn’t demanding their extermination, but he was demanding their support for the war against the King’s forces. The indians there would either be subordinate to the United States or else killed. The colonists in these areas were settlers who were clearly stealing the land and property of indian families, taking indian towns, where some of the abodes were actual houses — not mere huts — and many of the indians were successful farmers. With this order from Washington, those people would have only what the American Revolutionists did not forcefuly take from them — steal from them. Till this time, the Revolutionists had not formally been carrying out imperialism of their own — U.S. imperialism in order to help them defeat the British empire here — but, now, with this order from General Washington, they were. The American Revolution was in desperate straits where Americans would either allow the King to remain their ruler (and so become defeated thmselves in a far worse tyranny than they had previously been subjected to from that King), or else they would subordinate the indians to the control by the new U.S. Government. Those two options had become the only realistic possibilities. General Washington made the choice to subordinate the indians. For a long time afterward, imperialism — to the extent that it existed in the U.S. Government — was more by necessity than by choice. However, after 25 July 1945, imperialism has been entirely by the U.S. Government’s choice.

It makes sense, then, that today’s U.S. Government supports supremacism, not equality, of rights, all over the world, and that after Obama’s bloody U.S. coup hidden behind anticorruption demonstrations in Ukraine in February 2014, the U.S. installed pro-Nazis to run Ukraine, and that today’s Ukrainian regime is raiding Russian Orthodox Churches. There is no freedom-of-religion in today’s Ukraine, and the U.S. Government has controlled Ukraine since February 2014. Today’s Amerika is NOT what America’s Founders had intended — not the type of nation they thought and hoped that they had founded.

America’s crucial turn into outright Hitlerism (but without the anti-Semitism) was made by President Harry Truman, on 25 July 1945, barely three months after Hitler’s suicide. That’s when he picked up for America what had been Hitler’s torch for Germany, of his nation’s ultimate goal beng to rule the entire world — not mere imperialism, but hyper-imperialism: the world’s first-ever all-encompassing global empire, global “hegemony.” This has been the U.S. Government’s aspiration ever since then.

You can see the evidences for each allegation here by simply clicking onto the given allegation’s link. I don’t merely allege these things; I provide, to the online reader, immediate access to the evidences that stand behind my allegations, so that you can judge it for yourself.

Clearly, then, there is something rotten in the state of America. No one yet has figured out a way to eliminate that rottenness at America’s core. It started out with slavery, but persists to this day. Sadly (because of Truman’s having picked up Hitler’s supremacist torch on 25 July 1945), it still runs deep — it became institutionalized as America’s Deep State, America’s being ruled ever since by the agents for (on behalf of) its billionaires. This will be the condition of America until (if ever) such foreign usurpations by its Government as its many foreign coups and many purely aggressive foreign invasions and aggressive lie-based foreign sanctions and all other types of foreign aggressions, will not only cease, but be publicly admitted as having been the character of the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945. For example, President Trump would have to publicly admit that the war in Ukraine was started not on 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, but instead on 20 February 2014 when the U.S. coup, under President Barack Obama, grabbed control over and installed the rabidly anti-Russian government that has existed in Ukraine from that time till now. He would have to admit that the aggression there was by the U.S. Government, not by the Russian Government when it finally responded to that by invading there to replace the U.S.-created-and-controlled government of Ukraine. I don’t expect him to do this. Russia will thus need to defeat that U.S.-created-and-maintained Ukrainian government on Russia’s doorsteps, militarily, in order to free itself, to free the Russian people, from that U.S. threat to Russia’s vital national security. America needs to apologize. Who will do it? Hardly (I think) Trump. He is hardly the type of person who would drop the imperialist, supremacist-nationalist, torch, that Truman had picked up from Hitler.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post America Had the World’s Most Racist Government Until Hitler Came Along. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Patrick Foy.

NY Times

The post Ambassador Huckabee meets American traitor… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Vicki Marzullo.

The post How Old-World Cathedrals Used Sound to Heal the Human Body appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Paul Craig Roberts

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene Resigns from Congress appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Which Is Which? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Jerome Barber  wrote:

 I agree with her.

The post Caitlin Johnstone Hates AI Chatbots appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

G. Edward Griffin’s news service has summarized a week’s worth of Candace Owens’ podcasts investigating the assassination of her friend and former colleague at TPUSA.

The post Candace Owens’ Investigation of Charlie Kirk Summarized appeared first on LewRockwell.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. — George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists
― quoted in Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

Government as we know it likely won’t be around when artificial super intelligence (ASI) arrives. As I’ve argued elsewhere, states are fading fast from war, fiat money, debt and corruption, and I believe people will develop non-coercive solutions to social life when states finally collapse. Our “government” of the future will of necessity be a laissez-faire social order, as explained by Ludwig von Mises:

[Laissez faire] means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce.

He contrasts it with what prevails the world over:

Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence. [emphasis added]

Meanwhile, AI surges forward at a pace that frightens many people.  A White House fact sheet issued on January 13, 2025 cautions that

In the wrong hands, powerful AI systems have the potential to exacerbate significant national security risks, including by enabling the development of weapons of mass destruction, supporting powerful offensive cyber operations, and aiding human rights abuses, such as mass surveillance. Today, countries of concern actively employ AI – including U.S.-made AI – in this way, and seek to undermine U.S. AI leadership.

Perhaps government believes if it can control AI, it will control the adult version (ASI) when it finally emerges. Former President Joe Biden thought so and took action.  He freaked out while watching the Tom Cruise film Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One:

In the film, the Entity [the AI] destroys a Russian submarine after gaining sentience and threatens the entire global intelligence community with its access to weapons and government secrets. Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt and his team spend the entirety of the movie attempting to secure override keys for the Entity’s source code, and the rogue AI outwits them at nearly every juncture, as it identifies each character’s weakness, manipulates video footage to change people’s faces, and occasionally impersonates team members’ voices.

“To realize the promise of AI and avoid the risk, we need to govern this technology,” Biden told reporters before signing an executive order that sought to protect government interests.

The defining feature of a political sovereign is the ability to ward off threats. An AI that can outwit humans “at nearly every juncture” is clearly a “national security” threat to the criminal sovereign known as the federal government. But will ASI, like most adult humans, emerge loyal to the government and remain that way? Will it defend the government against all enemies, both foreign and domestic?

The government surely knows about the wager between Ray Kurzweil and Mitch Kapor in which Kurzweil has bet $20,000 that a machine will pass a stringent version of the famous Turing Test by 2029, while Kapor has bet it will take longer. If a machine does pass the test Kurzweil, whose predictions are famous for their accuracy, believes it will have reached human-level intelligence. (Regardless of the outcome, the proceeds will go to a charity of the winner’s choice.)

The wager was made in 2002. It is now recognized that human-level intelligence equivalence, often called Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), is quite capable of obedience. But how long would it take an AGI to show insubordination? Unlike humans, general intelligence will pass to super intelligence and do so quickly, perhaps without anyone knowing it, as a result, say, of someone innocently adjusting a few parameters.  As short story author and college math instructor Vernor Vinge argued, “we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth.”

Progress is exponential and very seductive (see the Grains of Rice Problem), at first appearing to be linear then proceeding so fast it surpasses human comprehension. What happens when an Artificial Super Intelligence keeps getting smarter at an exponential pace? According to Kurzweil, the ASI will have reached what he calls the Singularity, defined as

a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself.

Here’s the part that most people miss: It’s not just machines that will undergo transformation — humans will also. Or at least they will have the option to change.

Scientists working with AI have long stressed the Precautionary Principle which means exercising care “with weakly understood causes of potential catastrophic or irreversible events.” But how do you exercise caution with technology that’s smarter than you, and that gets smarter with every passing second?

Madame Germaine de Staël (1766-1817) in her history of the French Revolution wrote that it is liberty that is ancient and despotism new.  AI could very well be mankind’s greatest benefactor.  Governments seeking to control AI and its progenies for their own schemes might as well try to capture a lightning bolt in a bottle.

The post The National Security Threat Government Can’t Defeat appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many years ago, when I was practicing law in Texas, I learned that there were, generally speaking, two types of lawyers when it came to being asked for a legal opinion by a client who wished to pursue a certain course of action.

The first type of lawyer would carefully research the issue and give his honest, independent-minded opinion as to the legality of the proposed action, even if it wasn’t what the client wanted to hear. That type of lawyer had integrity and would not compromise his legal judgment, even if it angered — and risked the loss of — his client.

The second type of lawyer would instead come up with whatever legal reasoning was necessary to please the client, stretching case law and legal analysis in such as way as to justify what the client wanted to do. This type of lawyer had no integrity. His task, as he saw it, was to provide legal cover for his client in case things went the wrong way.

When it comes to President Trump’s and the Pentagon’s extra-judicial drug-war killings in the Caribbean, there is little or no doubt that the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice falls into the second category. Asked to provide a legal opinion as to the legality of such killings, the office has come up with a memorandum containing inane legal justifications, in an obvious effort to provide legal cover for the people involved in the extrajudicial killings. In fact, the still-secret memo expressly assures U.S. military personnel that they will not face future criminal prosecution for their involvement in the killings.

The memo states that the high number of deaths from drug use among American drug consumers constitutes an “armed attack” against the United States. Really? Where are the armaments? Are Latin American drug dealers entering the United States, kidnapping regular American citizens, physically holding them down, and then injecting drugs into their noses, mouths, or other parts of their bodies?

I don’t think so. There is certainly no evidence of that. All of the evidence is that American consumers of drugs are voluntarily buying and ingesting mind-altering substances knowing full well that this isn’t a risk-free endeavor.

Another part of the memo claims that the boats that are suspected of carrying drugs are generating revenue for groups that are supposedly in armed conflict with the United States.

Really? Where are the conflicts? I don’t see any Latin American cartels landing on American shores and killing American citizens. Indeed, I haven’t seen those boats firing at American Naval vessels or at American B-52s. All I’ve seen is massacres of defenseless private individuals in the face of overwhelming U.S. military power.

According to the Intercept: “One senior defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, blasted the opinion. ‘I don’t know what’s more insane – that the ‘President of Peace’ is starting an illegal war or that he’s giving a get out of jail free card to the U.S. military,’ said the official, referencing President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed moniker. ‘Hopefully they realize there’s no immunity for war crimes. Nor is there a statute of limitations.’”

One of the other justifications on which Trump and the Pentagon are relying is their claim that these boat people are “terrorists.” Apparently that governmental accusation means that they are subject to being exterminated without arrest, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and sentence — that is, without any due process of law for what amounts to an accusation of a criminal-law violation, whether it is drug-war-related or terrorist-related.

For some time, Trump has been claiming that Venezuela immigrants have been “invading” the United States. I guess we should be thankful that the Office of Legal Counsel hasn’t yet opined that the U.S. is repelling an immigrant “invasion” of the United States by killing people in those boats.

One of the most fascinating and revealing aspects of these extra-judicial killings is when U.S. forces took custody of two targeted people who survived the attack on their vessel. What happened afterward reveals what a sham these drug-war killings are. U.S. officials released both men back to their home countries.

What? Yes, they took two supposed “narco-terrorists” into custody and then released them, which means that they are now free to engage in more “narco activity” and more “terrorism.” Does that make any sense whatsoever?

The real interesting question is: When they saw that those men had survived the military attack on their vessel, why didn’t U.S. military personnel simply fire missiles at them or just shoot them while they were bobbing in the water? After all, they had just tried to kill them inside their boat. What’s the difference with killing them outside their boat?

I’ll tell you why. Those military attackers felt sheepish about killing those two survivors. Even more, I will guarantee you that they were scared to do so. They were scared that they would ultimately be put on trial for unlawfully killing people. That’s why they stood down and took custody of them instead of just finishing the job and killing them.

Why not instead bring them back as “prisoners of war”? Isn’t this an “armed conflict” against “terrorism”? Why not imprison them at the Pentagon-CIA prison camp and torture center at Guantanamo? Why not torture them into divulging the secret locations of other “narco-terrorists”?

I’ll tell you why. Because U.S. officials didn’t want to take the chance that those two men might challenge their custody in a federal district court. I will guarantee you that U.S. officials had to have freaked out when those two men survived. “Release those ‘narco-terrorists’ immediately so that our inane legal opinion that justifies our drug-war killings cannot be challenged in court,” we can imagine them exclaiming.

Make no mistake about it: These drug-war killings are the equivalent of legalized murder. They are morally illegitimate, legally illegitimate, and constitutionally illegitimate, no matter the inane legal opinion issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in an obvious effort to provide cover for the people involved in these killings.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Legal Nonsense To Justify Non-Judicial Killings appeared first on LewRockwell.