Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, Jerome Barber.

The post Ayn Rand Warned Us appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

The post Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: Why All Vaccines are Bad appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post ‘Who Ordered The Second Strike?’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Sasha Stone

The post Erika Kirk and The Wicked Witches of the Left appeared first on LewRockwell.

John Smith wrote:

Stop Anti-Semitism Lists Ms. Rachel, Tucker Carlson as Finalists for ‘Antisemite of the Year’ |

The Libertarian Institute

The post Stop Anti-Semitism Lists Ms. Rachel, Tucker Carlson as Finalists for ‘Antisemite of the Year’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bill Madden wrote:

Jean:

Thanks again for your full page ad in the: www.americanfreepress.net (AFP). 

The gentlemen on the Cc line forward my thoughts on occasion and might also do the same if you copied them with your thoughts.  I have my pedestrian views published at: www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/ every now and then.  Your political perspective deserves wider distribution and I’d like to help.  If you could send me your AFP ads as an attachment, I’d be happy to attach them to my e-mails on occasion.  I’m not computer literate so an attachment would help me re-send your ads.

Most Americans are ignorant and apathetic.  While starvation is one of the best cures for apathy, education will help the ignorant humans not consumed with apathy.  

I’ve been saying since the 1970s that the pro-Constitution conservatives needed good, effective leadership and an ability to educate the masses.  Many people feel like you do and might become more vocal if they could be inspired by your words.

Again, thanks for your efforts on behalf of the country.

The post Distribution appeared first on LewRockwell.

La traduzione in italiano dell'opera scritta da Wendy McElroy esplora Bitcoin a 360°, un compendio della sua storia fino ad adesso e la direzione che molto probabilmente prenderà la sua evoluzione nel futuro prossimo. Si parte dalla teoria, soprattutto quella libertaria e Austriaca, e si sonda come essa interagisce con la realtà. Niente utopie, solo la logica esposizione di una tecnologia che si sviluppa insieme alle azioni degli esseri umani. Per questo motivo vengono inserite nell'analisi diversi punti di vista: sociologico, economico, giudiziario, filosofico, politico, psicologico e altri. Una visione e trattazione di Bitcoin come non l'avete mai vista finora, per un asset che non solo promette di rinnovare l'ambito monetario ma che, soprattutto, apre alla possibilità concreta di avere, per la prima volta nella storia umana, una società profondamente e completamente modificabile dal basso verso l'alto.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/le-scuole-fanno-uscire-fuori-di-testa)

Quasi un terzo delle scuole pubbliche a livello nazionale sta ora monitorando la salute mentale degli studenti. Il governatore dell'Illinois, J. B. Pritzker, ha di recente firmato un disegno di legge per estendere lo “screening universale per la salute mentale” a due milioni di studenti dell'Illinois nell'ambito della sua Children's Behavioral Health Transformation Initiative. Ma questo sforzo di salvataggio devasterà molti studenti e rappresenta un avvertimento per i genitori di tutto il Paese. Abigail Shrier, membro del Manhattan Institute, ha avvertito che la nuova legge dell'Illinois significherà che “decine di migliaia di giovani dell'Illinois saranno spinti nell'imbuto della salute mentale e convinti di essere malati. Molti, o la maggior parte, saranno falsi positivi”.

Se i politici vogliono aiutare i giovani, devono riconoscere come le scuole pubbliche compromettano sistematicamente la salute mentale degli studenti.

I lockdown dovuti al Covid hanno distrutto la salute mentale di milioni di giovani americani. Un'indagine del 2024 del JAMA ha rilevato che tra il 2018 e il 2021, i giovani hanno visto un aumento di quasi il 300% del numero di accessi al pronto soccorso per disturbi alimentari e idee suicide. I tentativi di suicidio sono aumentati del 250% durante quel periodo. Depressione e ansia sono aumentate vertiginosamente tra i giovani dall'inizio della pandemia, ma politici e decisori politici hanno ignorato la carneficina mentale inflitta dalle linee di politica anti-Covid.

Un sondaggio del 2021 dei Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ha rilevato che il 44% degli studenti delle scuole superiori ha dichiarato di “sentirsi persistentemente triste o senza speranza nell'ultimo anno”. Le ragazze avevano quasi il doppio delle probabilità di essere depresse, con il 57% che “si sentiva persistentemente triste e senza speranza” rispetto al 31% degli studenti maschi. La chiusura delle scuole non è riuscita a contrastare la diffusione del Covid. Dopo la loro riapertura, gli studenti sono stati incalzati a rispettare obblighi assurdi sull'uso delle mascherine che non hanno fatto altro che moltiplicare l'ansia.

Le scuole stanno sovvertendo la salute mentale degli studenti, incitandoli senza sosta a dubitare o disprezzare il proprio corpo. Queste buffonate hanno raggiunto livelli epidemici anche prima dell'inizio della pandemia di Covid. Nel 2019 lo stato del Maryland emanò regolamenti per promuovere la “considerazione dell'identità e dell'espressione di genere” di ogni studente, reputandola un “valore”. Funzionari governativi e personalità politiche si sono arrogati la prerogativa di ridefinire il genere nello stato del Maryland. La contea di Montgomery, il più grande sistema scolastico dello stato, annunciò che avrebbe scelto i libri per il curriculum “attraverso una ‘lente LGBTQ+’ e si sarebbe chiesto se i libri ‘rinforzassero o interrompessero’ gli ‘stereotipi’, la ‘cisnormalità’ e le ‘gerarchie di potere’”, secondo una memoria depositata alla Corte Suprema dai genitori che hanno contestato con successo il sistema scolastico. In tale documento si sottolineava anche che “agli insegnanti viene detto di inquadrare il disaccordo con le idee [pro-LGBTQ] come ‘offensivo’ e di rispondere con esempi di ‘uomini che si smaltano le unghie’ o ‘indossano abiti eleganti’”. L'obiettivo è quello di instillare nei giovani “una nuova prospettiva che non venga facilmente contravvenuta dai loro genitori”, come ha ammesso il consiglio scolastico della contea.

L'indottrinamento ha prodotto un aumento del 582% del numero di giovani che si identificano come “non binari” nelle scuole della contea di Montgomery. “Disturbare il pensiero dei ragazzini” ha avuto un tale successo che quasi la metà degli studenti si è identificata come non binaria ed essi hanno molte più probabilità di soffrire di disturbi mentali. Un sondaggio ha rilevato che nel 2022 più della metà dei giovani transgender e non binari ha preso in considerazione il suicidio. Ciò non ha impedito ad altri sistemi scolastici di condurre campagne, aperte o nascoste, per convincere i giovani a pentirsi o a ribellarsi alle proprie origini.

Per decenni le scuole hanno bombardato i giovani con la propaganda ambientalista. Il risultato, secondo l'American Psychological Association, è che il 58% dei giovani americani è “molto o estremamente preoccupato per il cambiamento climatico” e il 43% ha affermato che “il cambiamento climatico ha avuto un impatto sulla loro salute mentale”. L'Harvard Medical Magazine riporta che per molti giovani “la preoccupazione per le minacce del futuro cambiamento climatico si traduce in attacchi di panico, insonnia, pensieri ossessivi e altri sintomi”.

Le scuole propongono come modello Greta Thunberg, l'adolescente svedese squilibrata i cui deliri incoerenti contro il mondo moderno l'hanno resa una santa. Per i cervelli giovani è irrilevante che molti degli allarmi ambientali si siano rivelati falsi o esagerati. Ai ragazzini è stato insegnato ad avere paura e a implorare i politici di salvarli: due conseguenze molto negative per la salute mentale. I sondaggi di Eco-America indicano che tra il 57% e il 70% degli adolescenti di età compresa tra 13 e 17 anni “riporta sintomi di ansia legati al clima”. Ella Emhoff, figliastra dell'ex-vicepresidente Kamala Harris, si è di recente lamentata su TikTok: “Penso che tutto ciò che riguarda l'ambiente mi stia davvero dando fastidio, ed è così: provo molta ansia per il clima, come tutti noi”. Trasformare l'ansia per il clima in una virtù non fa altro che diffondere ancor più l'angoscia.

Le scuole stanno anche sovvertendo la salute mentale esagerando enormemente altri pericoli che gli studenti affrontano, come ad esempio bizzarre esercitazioni contro eventuali sparatorie nelle scuole. In Indiana gli insegnanti di una scuola elementare sono stati colpiti da colpi di arma da fuoco nell'ambito di un programma di formazione per “scuole sicure”. Secondo l'Associazione degli Insegnanti dello Stato dell'Indiana, gli sceriffi hanno ordinato agli insegnanti di “entrare in un'aula quattro alla volta, poi hanno detto loro di accovacciarsi e hanno sparato loro con pallini in rapida successione, come in un'esecuzione”, lasciandone diversi insanguinati e molti in preda alle urla. Il sindacato si è lamentato: “Gli insegnanti erano terrorizzati, ma è stato detto loro di non dire a nessuno cosa fosse successo. Gli insegnanti che aspettavano fuori e che avevano sentito le urla sono stati portati in aula quattro alla volta e l'esercitazione è stata ripetuta”.

Le scuole stanno “trasformando sempre più i loro corridoi in imitazioni di vere sparatorie di massa, con tanto di poliziotti che sparano con pistole ad aria compressa e studenti di teatro arruolati per impersonare vittime, truccate con sangue finto e fori di proiettile. Occasionalmente insegnanti e studenti vengono sottoposti a esercitazioni a sorpresa senza preavviso”, come ha osservato un giornale studentesco di Great Neck, New York. Un'insegnante della Pennsylvania ha commentato di essere rimasta “più traumatizzata che preparata” dopo che alcuni dei suoi colleghi sono stati colpiti con pistole ad aria compressa da un finto tiratore. “Ci sono stati colleghi che sparavano ai colleghi, persone colpite da pallini [...]. La gente urlava, cercava di scappare, inciampava l'una sull'altra; è stato orribile”, ha ricordato Elizabeth Yanelli.

Tra i principali beneficiari di queste buffonate ci sono le aziende farmaceutiche che promuovono farmaci ansiolitici per i bambini. L'ex-poliziotto Raeford Davis ha commentato così queste esercitazioni: “Rituali del genere, di esecuzioni simulate, vengono condotti per scopi di controllo sociale basati sulla paura, per traumatizzare, instillare paura, disperazione, impotenza personale e dipendenza da figure autoritarie affinché si chieda di essere salvati e protetti”. Uno studio del 2021 condotto dai ricercatori del Georgia Institute of Technology “ha rilevato che ansia, depressione e stress aumentano di circa il 40% dopo le esercitazioni [per le sparatorie nelle scuole]”. Un simile danno psichico collaterale è particolarmente deplorevole, poiché le esercitazioni che le scuole costringono gli studenti a svolgere sono per lo più inutili in una crisi reale.

Molti studenti sono delusi perché riconoscono di non avere praticamente via di scampo dalla sorveglianza. Le scuole si vantano di dare ai giovani computer portatili gratuiti, ma questo equivale a indossare un braccialetto elettronico alla caviglia per monitorare tutto ciò che una persona scrive o ogni passo che fa online. Uno studio recente ha rilevato che la stragrande maggioranza delle aziende che le scuole assumono per sorvegliare gli studenti durante la navigazione online, in realtà li monitora 24 ore al giorno, 7 giorni su 7, utilizzando dispositivi forniti dalle scuole stesse. Lo studio ha rilevato che il 29% delle aziende “genera ‘punteggi di rischio’ degli studenti in base al comportamento online”. Il Center for Democracy and Technology ha riferito nel 2023: “Il monitoraggio delle attività studentesche continua a danneggiare molti degli studenti che afferma di aiutare: azioni disciplinari, messe alla berlina e contatti con le forze dell'ordine sono ancora conseguenze regolari” della sorveglianza attiva online sugli studenti.

Un recente cambiamento nella linea di politica federale in materia di sovvenzioni lascia intendere quanto danno gli interventi di Washington per la salute mentale abbiano già inflitto agli studenti. A luglio il Dipartimento dell'Istruzione degli Stati Uniti ha proposto di rivedere le linee guida per vietare che le sovvenzioni federali per la salute mentale “promuovano o sostengano ideologie di genere, attivismo politico, stereotipi razziali, o ambienti ostili per studenti di determinate etnie”.

Il fatto che sia necessaria una nuova linea guida per queste cose è indicativo delle follie precedentemente propagate dai burocrati. Sarà necessaria un'altra modifica normativa per smettere di usare i finanziamenti pubblici per incutere timore nei giovani?

Politici, psichiatri e scuole pubbliche sono gli ultimi a cui affidarsi per salvaguardare la salute mentale. I giovani americani stanno già soffrendo una spirale politico-psicologica discendente a causa di decenni di linee di politica abusive e repressive. Limitare il potere politico e burocratico, come sta facendo adesso il Dipartimento dell'Istruzione, è un primo passo fondamentale per riportare l'America alla normalità.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

Lew,

Nine days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, his close friend Tucker Carlson appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show with TPUSA’s Andrew Korvet and Blake Neff. It’s interesting to watch it now to gain insight into Tucker’s friendship with Charlie and their shared faith as followers of Christ. Korvet immediately gave the FBI text messages from Charlie that gave clues to possible involvement of a foreign power in his murder, but Korvet never publicly spoke of it afterward. Neff came under criticism for his recitation of TPUSA COO Mikey McCoy’s behavior immediately after Kirk was hit. Frank Turek makes an appearance – he was the guy to Charlie’s right at the UVU event in the white shirt  – who came under scrutiny for touching his white ball cap as a signal. Frank said the idea signals mean anything is ridiculous and denounced the conspiracy theory. The last few minutes of the video Tucker and Korvet discuss how Kirk double downed when his donors attempted to bully him into canceling Tucker’s appearance at a TPUSA conference due to Carlson’s foreign policy views.

The post Tucker Carlson on The Charlie Kirk Show appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: Why All Vaccines are Bad appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Bill Madden:

The difference between a conspiracy theory and objective reality is about six months.

The post Meme – One Day appeared first on LewRockwell.

My Two “Red Pill” Events

The Necessity of Power Elite Analysis in Understanding our World

Robert Barnes on the Deep Background of the Deep State Up to the JFK Assassination and Beyond

The Deep State or Invisible Government: A Brief Bibliographic Retrospective

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis. — Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373

Although the term the deep state (also described as the invisible government, or the secret government) has only gained widespread usage in recent years, the concept of double or dual governments is almost as old as the republic itself.

One of my all-time favorite books is the extremely rare 1934 volume by John McConaughy, Who Rules America?: A Century of Invisible Government, (published the same year as Albert Jay Nock’s seminal Our Enemy, The State).

.pdf version

Author McConaughy states:

Invisible Government’ is a phrase for which it would be difficult to formulate a dictionary definition without sacrifice of accuracy to brevity. It may perhaps be best described as the political and economic control of the community — or the political control for selfish, if not sinister, economic purposes — by individual men, or groups or organizations, who are careful to evade the responsibility which should always accompany power. They operate behind a mask or puppets in politics and business, and these must take the blame in courts of law, and before the bar of public opinion, for any errors in the technique of knavery.

McConaughy then impiously rips the masks off our elitist ‘Funding Fathers’ and their ‘invisible government’ for special privilege.

In what is one of the finest and most powerful histories of the early years of the American state, he demonstrates that the adoption of the Constitution amounted to a coup d’etat by these forces of ‘invisible government’.

Although the names and faces have changed over time, this is the same predatory plutocracy behind the Federal Reserve’s monetary meltdown and the Wall Street bankster bailouts, as well as Dwight Eisenhower’s military industrial complex and its related clandestine national security intelligence community apparat.

In 1964, shortly after the JFK assassination, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross wrote the first definitive examination of the Central Intelligence Agency, The Invisible Government, which was a major best-seller

In the opening of their expose’ they observed:

THERE ARE two governments in the United States today. One is visible. The other is invisible.

The first is the government that citizens read about in their newspapers and children study about in their civics books. The second is the interlocking, hidden machinery that carries out the policies of the United States in the Cold War.

This second, invisible government gathers intelligence, conducts espionage, and plans and executes secret operations all over the globe.

The Invisible Government is not a formal body. It is a loose, amorphous grouping of individuals and agencies drawn from many parts of the visible government. It is not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency, although the CIA is at its heart. Nor is it confined to the nine other agencies which comprise what is known as the intelligence community: the National Security Council, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Invisible Government includes, also, many other units and agencies, as well as individuals, that appear outwardly to be a normal part of the conventional government. It even encompasses business firms and institutions that are seemingly private.

To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000 Americans. Major decisions involving peace or war are taking place out of public view. An informed citizen might come to suspect that the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government in just the opposite direction.

This Invisible Government is a relatively new institution. It came into being as a result of two related factors: the rise of the United States after World War II to a position of pre-eminent world power, and the challenge to that power by Soviet Communism.

Government of the Shadows: Parapolitics and Criminal Sovereignty, edited by Eric Wilson, analyses the concept of clandestine government. It explores how covert political activity and transnational organized crime are linked — and how they ultimately work to the advantage of state and corporate power. The book shows that legitimate government is now routinely accompanied by extra-governmental covert operations. Using a variety of case studies, from the mafia in Italy to programs for food and reconstruction in Iraq, the contributors illustrate that para-political structures are not ‘deviant’, but central to the operation of global governments.

In particular see the chapter, “Democratic State vs. Deep State: Approaching the Dual State of the West ,” by Ola Tunander, which observes:

In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’.1

According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’ – which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’)2 – that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state – the ‘security state’ – is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law.3

Indeed, the ‘democratic state’ and the more autocratic ‘security state’ always ‘march side by side’!4

While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of democratic politics. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists’, when particular activities are ‘securitised’5 – in the event of an ‘emergency’. In fact, the security state is the very apparatus that defines when and whether a ‘state of emergency’ will emerge. This aspect of the state is what Carl Schmitt, in his 1922 work Political Theology, referred to as the ‘sovereign’.6

Logically speaking, one might argue that Morgenthau’s ‘dual state’ is derived from the same duality as that described in Ernst Fraenkel’s ‘conception of the ‘dual state’, which Fraenkel described as typifying the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany. In the Nazi case, though, this duality was overt, combining the ‘regular’ legal state with a parallel ‘prerogative state’, an autocratic paramilitary emergency state or Machtstaat that operated outside or ‘above’ the legal system, with its philosophical foundation in the Schmittian ‘sovereign’. Fraenkel refers to Emil Lederer, who argues that this Machtstaat (‘power state’, as distinct from the Rechtstaat) has its historical origins in the European aristocratic elite, which still played an important role within European society after the triumph of democracy. This elite acted behind the scene in the 1920s, but considered it necessary to intervene in support of the Nazi Party in the 1930s to prevent a possible socialist takeover. However, this autocratic Machtstaat – the Nazi SS-state – was arbitrary, because of its individualised command.7

In his analysis, Morgenthau draws a parallel between Nazi Germany and the US dual state. Indeed, in his view, the autocratic ‘security state’ may be less visible and less arbitrary in democratic societies such as the US, but it is no less important.

Morgenthau argues that

the power of making decisions remains with the authorities charged by law with making them, while, as a matter of fact, by virtue of their power over life and death, the agents of the secret police… [and what I would call the security state:
author] at the very least exert an effective veto over [these] decisions.8

The post Opening My Eyes to a Deeper, Wider Perspective on Viewing the World – its History and Geopolitics appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s the craziest thing in the world that we already have the technological ability to provide a decent standard of living for everyone on earth, but it doesn’t happen because it’s not profitable. We attained the greatest scientific achievement of all time and then did nothing with it. Our society is completely uninterested in it because capitalism is completely uninterested in it.

It’s just so insane how this doesn’t sit front and center in our attention all the time. There are people dying of starvation, exposure and preventable illnesses every single day for no good reason. Humanity became more than capable of ensuring that this never happened to anyone ever again, and just rode right past that stunning moment in history without even glancing up from its smartphone.

Can you imagine if we did that with any other major technological development?

“Oh yeah humans can fly now… but let’s not.”

“Hey humans now have the ability to share ideas and information in real time with anyone in the world, but whatever, let’s keep mailing letters instead.”

And I would argue that the ability to eliminate poverty and needless human suffering is a far more significant development than flight or the internet. But because it doesn’t generate value for shareholders, we cruised right past it going “Let’s make a chatbot that can generate an Alvin and the Chipmunks version of any song!”

This happened because caring for everyone was never the goal of capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to extract labor from the working class and resources from the global south to sell goods and services at a rate that generates profit for the owners of the means of production. That’s it.

Capitalism has no wisdom. It will start wars to generate profit. It will have impoverished populations toiling in mines and sweatshops for pennies in order to generate profit. It will burn up critical drinking water supplies for AI data centers in order to generate profit. It will cut down the last acre of old-growth rainforest in order to generate profit. It will pollute the air, fill the oceans with plastic and kill all the insects if offloading the cost of industry onto the ecosystem helps generate profit.

The entire world is being consumed by an artificially imposed system which holds as its foundational premise that mass-scale human behavior should be driven by the pursuit of profit for its own sake. It’s a mindless, planet-devouring machine of our own making. It is creating unfathomable destruction and suffering for terrestrial organisms of every species.

And it doesn’t have to be this way. There is nothing inscribed upon the fabric of the universe which says that we need to live under a system which causes us to feed our biosphere into the woodchipper so that billionaires can become trillionaires. Nowhere is it written in adamantine that that the many must always toil and suffer for the benefit of the few. Things are the way they are because of systems that were put in place by human beings, and human beings can replace those systems with different ones.

If we are to continue to survive on this planet, we’re going to have to move from systems which drive us to compete against our fellow humans and our fellow terrestrial organisms to systems that are driven by collaboration toward the good of all beings. Such systems would be entirely unprecedented by their nature, because unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. It would be unlike anything that’s ever been done before, but it is now a matter of existential importance that it be done.

We’re going to have to change. We’re going to have to become kinder. Gentler. Emotionally intelligent. Driven by the desire for the greater good instead of by fear and insecurity. We’re going to have to wake up. We’re going to have to become unlike anything we’ve ever been before.

Every species eventually hits an adapt-or-die juncture in its existence. This is ours. We must become a compassionate animal, or we will go the way of the dinosaur.

_________________

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 The Craziest Thing in the World Is That We Could End Poverty, But We Don’t appeared first on LewRockwell.

I recently watched the latest television network special on the JFK assassination: “Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK?” from ABC News. While the names and faces were different, it was indistinguishable from all the other disinfo pieces produced by CBS, NBC, the Discovery Channel, etc. in the past. I watched it so you don’t have to.

In 1963, there were only three television networks. On November 22, CBS, NBC, and ABC launched unprecedented coverage of President Kennedy being shot while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Not the actual shooting, of course. That was never shown. They set the template for all television news to come. They simply passed on official pronouncements from local law enforcement, the FBI, and the White House, which were consistently inconsistent and defied all common sense. NBC signed an agreement, in the wake of the biggest story of the twentieth century, to air only information that supported the government’s official narrative. Six decades ago, a bunch of “journalists” who are almost all long dead, agreed not to do what they were supposedly paid to do; investigate and question. Dan Rather was then a young reporter for the Dallas CBS affiliate. He was front and center, and breathlessly went on the air to relate how he’d seen a copy of the Zapruder film.

That home movie was taken by Dallas dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder. Giant “free press” outlet Life magazine paid Zapruder a huge sum of money for the film. Surely, you might think, this representative of the public’s right to know did so in order to beat the competition to the punch, and air the film is as many creative and profitable ways as possible. Actually, they buried it for twelve years. Suppressed it completely, like the Epstein Files. John D. Rockefeller would have been proud. If that seems like an odd thing to do, how odd was it that we had to rely on this grainy home video, to see exactly what happened in that presidential motorcade? There were a few other home movies of the event, including the never seen “Babushka film” (so called because the camerawoman wears a Russian scarf), which had the best view. Where was all the professional footage? The press was normally in front of every presidential motorcade, with their cameras trained on the smiling, handsome president. Not this time. Instead, they were packed into a bus several cars back in the motorcade.

Now, ABC News knew this in 1963. NBC knew it. CBS knew it. They also presumably knew that their ambitious local reporter Dan Rather was lying when he said that the Zapruder film showed JFK’s head going forward with great velocity. The film shows the exact opposite- the president’s head going back and to the left with tremendous force. Since the government claimed lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from above and behind, this obviously defied the laws of physics. They knew that there were multiple witnesses the government wasn’t interested in. At least six people who independently saw someone resembling Oswald running and entering a station wagon immediately after shots were fired. The Umbrella Man, pumping an open umbrella up and down on a sunny day. He was never identified, just like the Babushka Lady. The hole in the limo’s windshield. The absolute failure of the Secret Service to react to gunfire. Limo driver Bill Greer turning around instead of speeding away to safety.

The mainstream media knew all this and more. They knew that more people thought shots were fired from the front- the infamous Grassy Knoll- than from the building where Oswald worked. Look at the film- everyone is rushing for the Grassy Knoll. No witnesses are looking at, or interested in the Texas School Book Depository Building, where Oswald was a lowly paid worker. Only two mainstream journalists at the beginning were willing to actually do some digging. Jim Koethe was a Dallas Times Herald reporter, rumored to be working on a book about the case. Less then a year after the assassination, he was killed by a karate chop to the throat as he exited the shower. Really. “Natural causes,” I suppose. And Dorothy Kilgallen, famous panelist for the TV show What’s my Line? but also a real journalist, was deep into researching what would have been a blockbuster book on the case. Instead, she died under very suspicious circumstances in November, 1965. Her voluminous files were never found, and her best friend, who had once dated the young JFK, died a few days later.

Walter Cronkite, the trusty soul who provided the voice of the Giant Owl at the Bohemian Grove occult rituals for decades, and late in life bragged about being proud to be “seated at the right hand of Satan,” narrated a putrid 1967 CBS apologia for the Warren Report. Dan Rather followed suit in another comical “investigation” aired in the mid-1970s. NBC busied itself with discrediting Jim Garrison, and ABC aired a horrific 40th anniversary special in 2003, hosted by the Canadian high school dropout Peter Jennings. How do you go from high school dropout to national anchor? That’s even more impressive than college dropout turned billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. At any rate, the power of the medium was so strong that one of my sisters watched it and then told me that I was “wrong” about there being a conspiracy. How do you compete with that? The same fellow who dominated that 2003 special with his computer “animation,” Dale Myers, also dominates this new ABC special.

I argued with Dale Myers briefly decades ago on one of the biggest JFK assassination forums. With all due modesty, he really did run away with his cyber tail between his legs. But here I was, watching him spew out his nonsense again, with no one there to contradict him. ABC had nothing but shills for the official fairy tale as talking heads on this “investigative report.” Oliver Stone was there, sitting next to his good buddy Jim DiEugenio, whom I know and have interviewed. Stone was given a few sound bytes here or there, and DiEugenio had one short comment. They didn’t even flash his name onscreen. Jefferson Morley, who has been on a couple of shows with me, was there to provide his very truncated view of conspiracy, but even that was too much for ABC. Unless I missed something, he was only allowed one brief comment as well. There were the usual haggard “reporters,” who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, and are ordered to spout the nonsensical party line. You want that six figure- hell, maybe seven figure Christmas bonus, don’t you?

There was a young Black man, who was so unimpressive that I’ve forgotten his name. He was listed as a “social media influencer.” Probably has millions of fake followers. At any rate, he was a blatant DEI plant, who was born decades after the event and had absolutely nothing pertinent to offer. To be fair, he was no worse than the worn out ABC News veterans who displayed their mind boggling ignorance for maybe 250,000 viewers. That’s the hilarious thing about network television; they don’t seem to understand how few people watch them now. Cronkite’s audience is as dead as he is, although hopefully nowhere near the right hand of Satan. And yet, I’m sure that ABC pays these “journalists” huge salaries. It’s a crony capitalist business model thing, you wouldn’t understand. Any number of alt media figures draw a larger audience than these dinosaur networks do. So they know they’re not reaching millions. And yet they continue to lie. They must lie. Deception seems to give them sustenance.

If they simply had given Stone, DiEugenio, and Morley an equal amount of screen time, as opposed to giving so much of it to the absurd arguments of Myers, then however many people actually watched it might have become at least a bit educated on the subject. But, as always, our state controlled media has to make certain that the playing field isn’t level. The referees are on their side. They make the rules. They rig the game. I’ve been down this JFK assassination rabbit hole for fifty years now. Not many are left who have seniority on me. But the research conferences aren’t interested in me, so you know the television networks aren’t going to call. I know the facts. I’ve studied this thing well enough to understand how big a lie the official story is. I’m not going to entertain notions of a limited plot, from “rogue” elements, or a benign coverup. This was a massive conspiracy, involving very powerful forces. Journalists not yet born in 1963 continue to peddle these lies. That’s how powerful they are.

Read the Whole Article

The post JFK: 62 Years and They’re Still Lying appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I hear people talk about saving Western values, I ask them which ones still exist. 

I asked a feminist that question and all she could come up with was “male toxicity.”  I had just listened to a NPR program on which two feminists talked about Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders being sexually harassed.  So why did the cheerleaders fight so hard to get that job?  If they thought that their scantily-clad bodies weren’t going to attract male attention, they must have been crazy.  And disappointed had no male noticed.

Recently over a beer I listened to a former police officer explain how police departments in Democrat cities were being put in the hands of women and blacks. He said that it was the black police chief and white female in charge of police training in Minneapolis who framed Derek Chauvin.  They wanted to get a white male cop and withheld evidence and possibly perjured themselves in order to achieve their goal.

I read recently and reported that “victimized” women now dominate most professions, law, media, education, health care,  and are closing in on corporate executives.  Today’s reality is toxic femininity.  Consider what it means for a “toxic” white male to have a feminist for a boss.  Or a black boss who was taught in school to hate white “slave lords” and aversive racists.  In the Western world everyone except a white heterosexual male can be a victim.  White males can only be oppressors.  This is why when you hear a male on NPR or the networks, he speaks very effete in order to suggest that he is queer and not a toxic male.

The feminists were set back by the assault on them by the transgender lobby.  But they are now back at work.  Italy has just passed a law against Femicide, which means the murder of women.  Why do feminists need this law when it is already against the law to murder any gender?  

I suppose the reason could be that a misogynist is worse than a murderer and that a man who kills a woman must be a misogynist and deserving of punishment by a special law that includes murder and being a misogynist.  I suppose we will soon see laws to forbid transgendercide, homosexualcide, but not for “toxic” white heterosexual men, who will be the one human safe to kill.  See this.

It seems curious that the law only applies to murder and not to rape.  For many years European governments, such as the British, Swedish, and Norwegian, have steadfastly refused to protect their women from rape by immigrant-invaders by enforcing the law prohibiting rape.  In effect, immigrant-invaders have acquired de facto rights to the bodies of white European women.  Possibly this indicates that people of color have higher status than white women in the Tower of Babel that now comprises Western civilization.  Not long ago I reported on a European court ruling that dismissed rape charges against two immigrant-invaders on the grounds that their rape of a white woman was just an expression of their cultural values and in their value system did not qualify as a crime.  So why isn’t murder just an expression of cultural values?

From the standpoint of  the international movement for the Elimination of Violence against Women, it seems that rape does not count as violence against women. The AP writer reporting the story lays the blame for violence against women on “Italy’s patriarchal culture.”   In other words, it is the white toxic male’s fault that immigrant-invaders rape white women.

 Does the law apply if the murderer of a woman is a woman?

What if an American black woman is raped by immigrant-invaders.  Is this the fault of white toxic males?

The post Feminists Find a New Complaint: Femicide appeared first on LewRockwell.

Modern western culture is an absolute anomaly in the history of human civilization. If one studies the principles and doctrines of nearly every other society and empire around the world, you will not find one that allows mass immigration of foreigners with contrary ideologies. You will not find one that allows foreigners to migrate without strict assimilation and loyalty.

From the Arab states, to China, South Korea, and Japan (until recently), to India and beyond, every culture maintains a strict sense of supremacy. There is an absolute expectation that newcomers will adapt to political policies, belief systems, social norms, etc. Most of the world for thousands of years has operated in this way. Only the modern west deviates and only the west is chastised as “xenophobic” for establishing barriers to foreign influence.

The US in particular has been typecast as a “global melting pot”, even though the vast majority of immigration up until the last half of the 20th century was from other western nations with similar beliefs and traditions. The melting pot theory was largely promoted and glorified by socialist elites in the early 1900s and was not a value of the common American.

Israel Zangwill (a British-Jewish Broadway playwright and devout socialist/supporter of feminism) popularized the term nationally in 1908. Even then, he spoke specifically about various European cultures coming to America.

The “melting pot” was never about inviting millions of people from the third-world with utterly exclusive and hostile ideologies. This notion did not become popular until recently.

What happened? When did it become America’s “duty” to adopt the problem children of the rest of the planet? And why is western civilization the only civilization that is expected to be submissive to the concept of multiculturalism?

This topic is at the very root of nearly every political conflict raging today. The ICE raids, the foreign travel bans, the use of the National Guard to deter organized interference of deportations, the recent terror attack in Washington DC, the increasing calls by Democrats and woke activists for violent “resistance” – All of it goes back to the notion that America is SUPPOSED to welcome anyone and everyone, legal or illegal, from any part of the world regardless of the threat they might pose to our society.

Progressives, for various reasons, furiously insist that America is THE melting pot. That this is our national heritage and that anyone who says otherwise is a “fascist” trying to fundamentally change our cultural foundations.

NGOs and globalist foundations spend billions of dollars to facilitate mass immigration to the US, often in violation of the will of the voting public and the administrations in power. They also fund the majority of activist groups trying to disrupt deportations.

Global governance organizations like the UN spend vast sums of money to enable illegal immigration into the US, providing subsidies, maps, and legal advice to migrants seeking to sneak into America or exploit loopholes for temporary residency.

A number of foreign governments (mainly India and Mexico) lobby the US government to open the floodgates, expanding visa programs and allowing non-citizens to take American jobs, housing and other resources.

The “melting pot” has been poisoned with a rancid cocktail of nefarious agendas. Any positive vestiges of the ideal have been lost. Any value the melting pot might have once had is gone. All that is left is an army of parasites looking for blood; a swarm of mosquitoes rushing in to latch onto a vein. Few if any of these people or institutions care about the “American Dream”, they only see the US as an easy target ripe for conquest.

We have made ourselves an easy target. Our faith in liberalism has led us down a dark path of suicidal empathy. We naively assumed that “tolerance” is a virtue; it is not. Tolerance is a luxury – A luxury for the ultra wealthy and the extraordinarily dimwitted.

No other culture on Earth worships tolerance like westerners do, and there’s a good reason for that. In the case of the US, our ancestors already invested their blood and tears and treasure into this nation to make it the most wealthy and successful in the world. We have been living off their labors for generations.

The people that want to give that civilizational wealth away are people who lack respect for the trials and tribulations required to obtain it.

Another problem is that our tolerance often goes unappreciated because it is not a virtue for any other culture, either. The third world sees tolerance as weakness and opportunity. Many foreign social belief systems, from Judaism, to Hinduism to Islam, carry an ancient code of tribalism, an insider/outsider mentality of supremacy which is admonished in modern western thought but tolerated in immigrants.

For third worlders, a culture which is tolerant is fair game for exploitation and perhaps even invasion. You will consistently see foreign groups in the US argue that they are indeed American, but at the same time they will declare allegiance to their nation of origin. Their love of America is based on their love of the WEALTH they can derive from America. They’re laughing all the way to the closest Western Union.

Most have no interest in our principles and our heritage. They see America as an economic zone, a global commons with resources to be tapped. In other words, foreigners see immigration as a fishing business, a means to gain access to a largely unprotected wealth pool created by a culture with more historic merit and more success. They have been gathering their nets for quite some time.

In 2024 the US government under Joe Biden spent over $72 billion on foreign aid with another $26 billion in supplementals. India and Mexico transfer around $100 billion total in remittance from the US each year (foreign workers sending money back home). A number of officials with ethnic roots in these countries regularly argue in favor of continued visas and mass immigration while claiming it’s “for the good of Americans.”

Again, their loyalty is to their culture of origin first and America last.

For progressives and globalists immigration is also about wealth, primarily the redistribution of it from middle-class and upper-class Americans into foreign coffers. They see the common American people (conservatives) as a thorn in their side that needs to be removed. The draining of our buying power and living standards is a stepping stone to cultural deconstruction.

Mass immigration is a tool for social change. Multiculturalism erases national pride and the concept of protected borders. For if we are overwhelmed by the third world, who is going to care about maintaining the borders of our nation anymore? We might as well let the whole thing collapse, right?

They openly admit to this agenda, it’s not a secret. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Black-pilled nihilists will say that we’ll “do nothing”, but I’m not really interested in the opinions of conservatives who have given up. They are just as responsible for our troubles as progressives. They are weaklings and cowards.

Donald Trump’s recent declaration of a ban on third world immigration is at least bringing the topic to the average American dinner table. It’s been a long time since we had a real national reexamination of the “melting pot” idea. And, from my observations the use of mass deportations is gathering vast support among the American public.

I really don’t think officials living in the bubble of DC or mainstream journalists suffering from delusions of influence realize just how deep the anger goes when it comes to foreign exploitation and foreign influence over American society. I would suggest that there are tens of millions of patriots on the verge of walking out the door tomorrow to wage war on leftists and illegal immigrants should the obstructions of deportations continue.

The naysayers just don’t get how fed up people are becoming. Third world enclaves in places like Minneapolis and Dearborne don’t get it, either. Our tolerance is rapidly melting away, faster than the melting pot can be filled. The era of liberalism is over. The era of western multiculturalism is about to be stamped out. Mark my words, we are on the precipice of a reckoning.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post America’s Poison Melting Pot and the Luxury of Tolerance appeared first on LewRockwell.

The government shutdown “proved an argument that conservatives have been making for 45 years: The U.S. Department of Education is mostly a pass-through for funds that are best managed by the states.” The most significant thing about this statement in a November 16 USA Today editorial is not its substance. As the editorial’s author points out, the argument presented is not new.

The most significant thing about the statement is that its author is Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Unlike many in DC, Secretary McMahon backs up her words with action. She is dismantling the Department of Education, fulfilling one of President Trump’s campaign promises.

Since President Trump and Secretary McMahon cannot close the department absent authorizing legislation — legislation that appears unlikely to pass in the current Congress, Secretary McMahon is gutting the department by transferring responsibility for most of its functions to other parts of the government. Secretary McMahon has moved to the Labor Department the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers 27 K-12 grant programs, and the office of Postsecondary Education, which administers 14 programs aimed at helping college students, as well as several other programs. The Interior Department will manage the Indian education program, while the State Department will manage the federal foreign language education program. The Department of Education will, for the time being, ensure schools are complying with federal civil rights laws.

Spreading education programs among several different departments may reduce spending. For example, it could spur Congress to stop wasting millions of dollars a year on public relations for the Education Department. However, it does not necessarily reduce federal involvement in education. Therefore, those of us committed to restoring control over education to local communities must continue to advocate for eliminating all federal education programs. The billions spent by the federal government on “improving” education have had the opposite effect. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 72 percent of American eighth graders are below proficient in math and 70 percent are below proficient in reading.

America’s education system cannot be fixed by another No Child Left Behind style reform imposed on local schools by federal politicians and bureaucrats. Instead, the only way to “fix” American education is to restore control to local communities, school boards, and — most of all — parents.

This is why all who care about quality education should celebrate the continued growth of homeschooling. According to Angela R. Watson of the Institute for Education Policy at Johns Hopkins University, homeschooling in the 2024-25 school year “continued to grow across the United States, increasing at an average rate of 5.4 percent.”

Parents looking for a homeschooling curriculum incorporating the ideas of liberty should consider my online curriculum. My curriculum provides students with a solid education in history, literature, mathematics, and the sciences. It also gives students the opportunity to create their own websites and internet-based businesses. This provides students with “real world” entrepreneurial experience that will be useful no matter what career paths they choose.

The curriculum is designed to be self-taught, with students helping, and learning from, each other via online forums. Starting in the fourth grade, students are required to write at least one essay a week. Students also take a course in public speaking.

The curriculum emphasizes the history, philosophy, and economics of liberty, but it never substitutes indoctrination for education. The goal is to produce students with superior critical thinking skills. If you think my curriculum may meet the needs of your child, please visit www.RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information.

The post Progress in the Fight for Educational Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

At least 10 children have died because of the COVID shots, according to a recently publicized email from Trump Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials.

“At least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination,” FDA Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad wrote on Friday in an email to staff, obtained by The Daily Caller.

“This is a profound revelation. For the first time, the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children,” Prasad said in the memo.

The finding corroborates that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which recently linked at least 25 pediatric deaths to the COVID shot, via information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Both counts likely significantly underestimate the real number of pediatric deaths from the shots, considering that studies have found vaccine injuries have been seriously underreported to VAERS.

In his Friday memo, Prasad ripped the Biden administration for pressuring the injection of these experimental mRNA shots into children.

“Healthy young children who faced tremendously low risk of death were coerced, at the behest of the Biden administration, via school and work mandates, to receive a vaccine that could result in death,” wrote Prasad.

“In many cases, such mandates were harmful. It is difficult to read cases where kids aged 7 to 16 may be dead as a result of covid vaccines.”

The disturbing admission by the Trump administration’s health agency highlights the silence of the Biden administration about these deaths and raises further questions about its integrity or lack thereof.

“Why did it take until 2025 to perform this analysis, and take necessary further actions? Deaths were reported between 2021 and 2024, and ignored for years,” wrote Prasad. He acknowledged that the vaccines potentially killed more children on balance, considering that they had virtually no risk of dying from COVID.

“The truth is we do not know if we saved lives on balance,” he wrote. “It is horrifying to consider that the US vaccine regulation, including our actions, may have harmed more children than we saved. This requires humility and introspection.”

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) will reportedly strengthen its safety protocols for vaccines, including by requiring more clinical trials as opposed to relying on antibody laboratory studies, modifying the annual flu vaccine release, and examining the effect of administering multiple vaccines in one round.

This year, the CDC removed COVID shots from its recommended “vaccines” for healthy children. A CDC panel had voted in 2022 to add the COVID shots to the childhood immunization schedule despite their experimental nature and the fact that they were produced in a fraction of the time ordinarily required to bring a vaccine to market.

The push for COVID shots for children was spearheaded at least in part by CBER Director Peter Marks, who pushed for full approval of the COVID shots even for the young and healthy and laid the foundation for COVID shot mandates.

A large, growing body of evidence shows that the mRNA shots were dangerous to human health in a wide variety of ways and caused deaths at a rate far exceeding usual safety standards for vaccines. As Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, an ear, nose and throat specialist in Houston, Texas, explained to Tucker Carlson in April:

Normally, the FDA will put a black box warning on a medication if there have been five deaths. They will pull it off the market if there have been 50. Well, according to VAERS, (the) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System – and it’s vastly under-reported, which I have seen firsthand – there have been 38,000 deaths from these COVID shots.

That number has since increased, according to VAERS, which now reports 38,773 deaths, 221,257 hospitalizations, 22,362 heart attacks, and 29,012 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis due to the COVID shot as of August 29, among other ailments.

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post Trump FDA Says COVID Shots ‘Killed’ at Least 10 Children, Promises New Vaccine Safeguards appeared first on LewRockwell.

My post on Trump’s war on Venezuela two days ago mentioned a Washington Post report (archived) about a war crime directly ordered by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth:

The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

The Intercept had previously reported (archived) the second strike the U.S. military had launched against survivors:

People on board the boat off the coast of Venezuela that the U.S. military destroyed last Tuesday were said to have survived an initial strike, according to two American officials familiar with the matter. They were then killed shortly after in a follow-up attack.
…
Last week, a high-ranking Pentagon official who spoke to the Intercept on the condition of anonymity said that the strike in the Caribbean was a criminal attack on civilians and said that the Trump administration paved the way for it by firing the top legal authorities of the Army and the Air Force earlier this year.

“The U.S. is now directly targeting civilians. Drug traffickers may be criminals but they aren’t combatants,” the War Department official said. “When Trump fired the military’s top lawyers the rest saw the writing on the wall, and instead of being a critical firebreak they are now a rubber stamp complicit in this crime.”

The high-ranking Pentagon official is correct in that the strikes against boats in international waters are criminal attacks on civilians.

But the killing of survivors of such strikes is more than that. It is undoubtedly a war crime.

Hegseth’s order to kill survivors was clearly illegal. It was the duty of the soldiers in the line of command to reject the order. That they have not done so but followed the order is in itself a war crime.

How do we know this?

Because the Department of Defense’s LAW OF WAR MANUAL (LOWM) (pdf) says so:

18.3 DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

Each member of the armed services has a duty to: (1) comply with the law of war in good faith; and (2) refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war.

Further down the Manual uses the exact case in question,  an order to kill survivors at sea, as an example of an illegal order:

18.3.2 Refuse to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations.
Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. In addition, orders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of law of war.

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations.
The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.27

Every soldier down the line of command, from the commanding general receiving Hegseth’s verbal order down to the guys who pushed the button to launch the missile had the duty to reject the order. Those who have not done so are themselves guilty.

The footnote in 18.3.2.1 points to the case of the Canadian hospital ship HMHS Llandovery Castle which on 27 June 1918 had been torpedoed by a German U-Boot:

The sinking was the deadliest Canadian naval disaster of the war. 234 doctors, nurses, members of the Canadian Army Medical Corps, soldiers and seamen died in the sinking and subsequent machine-gunning of lifeboats.

In 1921 a German court sentenced two officers to years in prison because they had followed the illegal order of the submarine’s captain, Helmut Brümmer-Patzig, to kill the survivors.

According to the footnote in the LoWM the court said:

“It is certainly to be urged in favor of the military subordinates, that they are under no obligation to question the order of their superior officer, and they can count upon its legality. But no such confidence can be held to exist, if such an order is universally known to everybody, including also the accused, to be without any doubt whatever against the law. This happens only in rare and exceptional cases. But this case was precisely one of them, for in the present instance, it was perfectly clear to the accused that killing defenceless people in the life-boats could be nothing else but a breach of the law. As naval officers by profession they were well aware, as the naval expert Saalwiachter has strikingly stated, that one is not legally authorized to kill defenceless people. They well knew that this was the case here. They quickly found out the facts by questioning the occupants in the boats when these were stopped. They could only have gathered, from the order given by Patzig, that he wished to make use of his subordinates to carry out a breach of the law. They should, therefore, have refused to obey.”

It can not be more clear. The DoD’s Law of Warfare manual is using the case of killing survivors at sea as an example of an illegal order. Today the court would say:

“They could only have gathered, from the order given by Hedseth, that he wished to make use of his subordinates to carry out a breach of the law. They should, therefore, have refused to obey.”

There are signs that one commanding officer did his duty and refused to execute Hegseth’s illegal order. On October 16 the U.S. military attacked another, the sixth, vessel. Two of the four people on board survived and were rescued:

President Trump said that the two survivors of a U.S. military strike Thursday on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea will be returned to their countries of origin.
…
One survivor is from Ecuador and the other is from Colombia.

Thursday’s strike marks the sixth known boat attack in the area since last month — and the first known attack with survivors. Mr. Trump said the strike was against a submarine carrying mostly fentanyl and other illegal narcotics.
…
A Navy helicopter transported the survivors from the semi-submersible to a Navy ship, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News on Friday.

“It is the custom of the sea to save people who are at risk in international waters. You don’t sort of sail on. That’s against every principle of naval activity,” Eugene R. Fidell, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, told CBS News on Friday. “You’re supposed to save people, even though the people here are people who are only in danger because the U.S. was attempting to kill them.”

On the very same day those survivors were rescued, October 16, the DoD announced that the head of its Southern Command was ‘stepping down’:

The military commander overseeing the Pentagon’s escalating attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea that the Trump administration says are smuggling drugs is stepping down, three U.S. officials said Thursday.

The officer, Adm. Alvin Holsey, is leaving his job as head of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees all operations in Central and South America, even as the Pentagon has rapidly built up some 10,000 forces in the region in what it says is a major counterdrug and counterterrorism mission.

It was unclear why Holsey is leaving now, less than a year into his tenure, and in the midst of the biggest operation in his 37-year career. But one of the U.S. officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said that Holsey had raised concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats.

It now seems clear that Admiral Holsey got fired for not following Hegseth’s illegal order and for ordering the rescue of the survivors of the strike.

Hegseth meanwhile reveals himself as veritable psychopath:

Pete Hegseth @PeteHegseth – 0:37 UTC · Dec 1, 2025

For your Christmas wish list…

@U.S. Southern Command

There are signs that Congress is waking up to the issue (archived) and that Hegseth’s order may well have real consequences for him:

A top Republican and Democrats in Congress suggested on Sunday that American military officials might have committed a war crime in President Trump’s offensive against boats in the Caribbean after a news report said that during one such attack, a follow-up strike was ordered to kill survivors.
…
The lawmakers’ comments came after top Republicans and Democrats on the two congressional committees overseeing the Pentagon vowed over the weekend to increase their scrutiny of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean after the report. Mr. Turner said the [Washington Post] article had only sharpened lawmakers’ already grave questions about the operation.

The senators and member of congress should grow a spine and use their power over the budget to reign in the president. The secretary of defense must be fired from his position. Admiral Holsey must be reinstate as Southern Command.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Soldiers Have ‘Duty To Refuse’ Hegseth’s Order To Commit War Crimes appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Beethoven.” Berthold Genzmer (ca. 1890).

December 16 is a special anniversary, a significant one in the history of our Western Christian civilization, but one that should not be forgotten. On that date, 255 years ago in 1770, the musician and composer Ludwig van Beethoven was born in the city of Cologne (Koln) in the Rhineland in what is now the Federal Republic of Germany, then part of the Holy Roman Empire. Traveling to Vienna as a young man, he spent much of his life there as one of the greatest composers of music of all time. His compositions and his persona continue to resound through the ages—as long as there is a Western and Christian culture to admire and celebrate.

Recently, I came upon a study of his life, a study that attempts to revise some of the commonly-held misconceptions about Beethoven, that somehow he was wrapped up in the secular ideals of the eighteenth century Enlightenment and even its anti-religious, or anti-Catholic ideas.

Written by Nicholas Junkai Chong (Columbia University, 2016), the work is a PhD dissertation which is titled “Beethoven’s Catholicism: A Reconsideration” and it makes a number of significant points, among which that Beethoven was much closer in many of his views to the post-Napoleonic traditionalist Restoration than many other chroniclers have admitted. Indeed, we remember the story of his original dedication of his famous “Eroica” symphony (no. 3) to Napoleon, whom he had thought would “liberate” Europe, but then tore that dedication up, instead dedicating the work to Prince Lobkowicz, his patron, certainly no liberal. But that is just one instance, and there are others, including long passages from his letters, his Tagebuch [“Diary”], and the Heiligenstadt Testament, and books that he read by contemporary (and orthodox) theologians, that indicate that his early enthusiasm for the ideals of “liberté” and “egalité” were tempered by an abiding faith that eventually triumphed over many of his earlier illusions. And to this we must add his solid loyalty to the Habsburg Empire and its Kaiser.

Cultural giants like Beethoven have made precious contributions to our Western Christian heritage, a heritage that is critically threatened in our time by demonic and Gnostic demiurges who seek nothing less than the complete perversion of two millennia of Christian culture which brought together the salvific Gift of the Old Testament Hebrews, the philosophy of ancient Greece, and the classical traditions of Rome.

Beethoven was an integral part of that continuum. And like so many others who have contributed to our inherited corpus of art, music, architecture, and literature, he stands above the ages athwart the disintegration and the frenzied assaults on what the poet William Butler Yeats called (in his poem, “The Second Coming”) the “rocking cradle” of Bethlehem—that “rocking cradle” of the Christ from which our culture proceeds.

Just as the post-Marxist and Progressivist academics and mobs and their allies in our cowardly political and media elites wish to put all reminders of our past—those monuments and symbols—whether Confederate or colonial, in remote museums, safely away from the inquiring eyes of most of our citizens, so, too, those epigones of Evil, those cultural vandals who would destroy our inheritance, wish to lock up our sacred traditions of music, literature, and the arts away from our population for whom that inheritance is a birthright. Or, separate them and make them practically inaccessible. And, far worse, “re-interpret” them using new templates based entirely on “race” and “gender”—thus, “women’s studies” which views literature and music through the lens of “masculine oppression” and “toxic masculinity” throughout the ages.

In December 1940, at the end of a live national Saturday matinee broadcast of the Metropolitan Opera’s production of Gaetano Donizetti’s La Fille du Regiment, as author Paul Jackson (in his volume, Saturday Afternoons at the Old Met) recounts, the famous soprano Lily Pons advanced to the front of the stage, and holding a French flag aloft, sang “La Marseillaise.” The audience erupted in emotional enthusiasm…not just there in New York, but across the entire nation where as many as forty million listeners tuned in and heard her salute to a defeated France. Forty million Americans in every state and territory (out of around 130 million citizens) were united not only in remembering fallen France, but by and in a culture and musical tradition they all shared, and, even if not devotees of opera, which they at least understood to be part of their precious cultural patrimony.

Today that unity no longer exists. It has been rent asunder by the very guardians of that cultural inheritance, those entrusted with its care and transmission, who have succumbed to the Dark Lord and the enticements that emit from the foulest voices and most fetid enemies of our civilization.

It was the Roman poet Juvenal two millennia ago in his Satires who wrote, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,” which translated means: “Who is guarding us against the guardians?” Today we must ask the same questions: Who is guarding us against the cabal of our Intelligence Agencies which now serve as instruments of the Deep State?—Who is guarding us against a political class bought and paid for by globalists who have no loyalty to country or to faith, but rather only to their secularized vision of a global Godless Utopia?—Who is guarding us against the academic elites who control our educational system and pollute the minds of our children?—Who is guarding us against the feculent pollution of our cultural and artistic heritage?

For decades—since before the Second World War—increasingly powerful Elites have controlled the destiny of the American nation. And this dominance has meant not just the revolutionary overthrowal of the traditional political order, but also the veritable abortion of our cultural heritage.

After an initial enthusiasm for and flirtation with what he thought Napoleon might bring to Europe, Beethoven became a strong supporter of the Habsburg monarchy…and an avowed foe of the Napoleonic destruction of the Old Order. He understood what that meant, just as the Blessed Pius IX after the Revolution of 1848 understood the deleterious effects of liberalism and its fanatical desire to destroy Christian civilization.

In 1813 to celebrate the great victory of the Marquess (later Duke) of Wellington over the French at the Battle of Vitoria in Spain (June 21, 1813), Beethoven composed a wonderful little ceremonial piece—“Wellington’s Victory”—a kind of short audially evocative symphonic poem depicting that momentous battle that freed Spain from Napoleonic tyranny. In it he interpolated both French and British airs and songs, including a rousing version of “Rule, Britannia!” (The Brits were on the “good” side back then.) It stands as a musical symbol of both the cultural response that Christian Europe then offered to “the great thief of Europe” as well as a paean to military triumph over the forces of Revolution.

Today both Europe and the United States appear prostrate before the even more frenzied offspring of those 19th century revolutionaries. Let us, then, in 2026 seize upon the signs of Hope—those signs of contradiction against Modernism and Progressivism—and, like our ancestors, like Wellington and, yes, like a Beethoven with the scales removed from his eyes, raise up the banners of Christ the King.

While advancing once more beneath His Cross, we intone the Laudes Regiae: “Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!” chanted at the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas Day in the year 800 A.D. And we could do no better than letting “Wellington’s Victory” become our symphonic clarion call of militant crusade against our powerful enemies who seek nothing less than the extinction of our culture, our faith and us.

The post Beethoven, the Duke of Wellington, and the Laudes Regiae appeared first on LewRockwell.

Michael Wolff is being pilloried, and although he’s a friend, he deserves some of it because of his dealings with the arch pimp and blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein. For any of you traveling abroad in North Korea, what Wolff has done is play uncle to the blackmailer-pimp, no longer with us, thank God. Michael Wolff has become rich by writing books—hatchet jobs, actually—on Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump. Media types don’t like Rupert because his newspapers are mostly conservative. Media types are usually physically ugly and politically left-wing. Ergo, they don’t agree with Rupert and wish he had never come over to these shores and rescued papers like the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. He also started Fox News, and Fox dominates not only the news cycle but also late-night shows. If Fox didn’t exist, a certain Queens real estate developer would not be living in D.C. as I write. Hence Michael Wolff does not like Rupert. But I do, and I also like The Donald, another person Michael Wolff really dislikes. But I will forgive Michael Wolff anything because of his beautiful wife, Victoria, and I do accept the fact that I’m a sucker for any person of the feminine sex who happens to be beautiful. I simply can’t help it, despite years of trying to resist it.

“What I find amusing is how desperate the media in general and the Times in particular are to try to connect Trump with Epstein.”

Neither Rupert—my onetime boss at the New York Post and London’s Sunday Times—nor The Donald fell for Epstein’s tricks, despite Michael’s advice to the pimp and blackmailer. Both men are too smart and have been around the quad for too long, as they say, to fall for them. Rupert would not be caught dead in the moral sewer that was Epstein. I wish I could say the same for The Donald and Michael Wolff, but however hard Michael tries, along with Trump haters like the Times and New Yorker types, The Donald did not ever get involved with Epstein except having his picture taken at various crappy lowlife parties, now described by the know-nothing media as glamorous shindigs. The onetime head of Harvard, Summers, yes, onetime world’s richest man Gates, yes, onetime president of the Unites States Clinton, maybe, former head of Apollo Leon Black, definitely, but not The Donald. Michael Wolff wanted to entrap Trump with the scumbag but never managed it. He made a fortune trying, though. Good for you, Michael, but it’s a pity your name comes up with that of Epstein.

What I find amusing is how desperate the media in general and the Times in particular are to try to connect Trump with Epstein. Ms. Giuffre’s book is now considered the Bible by the Brit hacks who managed to bring down Andrew Windsor. The fact that she took 12 million greenbacks from him, and after that committed suicide, has not made her story at all suspect to the Brits. The most ignored passage in her book is the one that absolves Trump, the one stating that he acted like the perfect gentleman as far as she was concerned. It must be very frustrating for all those ugly little people at the Times, being unable to hang a crime on Trump. Some of them might even take out their frustrations on their long-suffering, homely wives. The one I feel most sorry for is Summers, an innocent about women who only asked for advice. Summers should not have resigned any post because he did nothing wrong.

Wolff advised Epstein to let Trump hang himself. The Donald is too smart for that. I have written this before, but here it goes once again: A woman I was seeing on the side long ago was asked by Epstein about me. He wanted to meet me. I told her to get lost. Some time later, while sitting in a port-side café in Saint-Tropez, my wife and I were approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, whom I knew from London in the past. She almost begged us to attend a party she was giving. My wife said we were about to sail away, and we actually did. There was no way we would ever be seen with such lowlifes.

So here is my question: How could someone like Leon Black, a shark if there ever was one, pay millions to the pimp Epstein for market info? It had to do with you-know-what, as Epstein was a con man and the shark knew more about markets than Epstein could ever hope to. I can see Larry Summers being taken in because as an academic he’s an innocent where the fair sex is concerned. Gates, ditto. Never mind. The best thing Epstein ever did was to do himself in, but leave it to the left-wing media to reach for straws. Poor things, they’ve got three more years of Trump. Maybe a Russian connection or some hooker’s claims might save them. They live in hope.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Crying Wolff appeared first on LewRockwell.