Aggregatore di feed

You would think it is impossible to call Ludwig von Mises a fascist. He was of course an old fashioned classical liberal, what we would call today a libertarian. Some extreme leftists have even ben stupid enough to claim that Mises was sympathetic to the Nazis. They don’t deny that Mises was a refugee from  Nazism, but they say, when it comes down to it, Mises would take fascism, even Nazism, over a Marxist socialist revolution.

Of course, this is nonsensical. Mises wrote the classical analysis of Nazism, identifying it as a form of socialism in which the ostensible forms of the market, such as private ownership and private business, were preserved, but in fact Nazi officials told the businessmen what prices to charge. They were totally subject to the will of the state.

Despite all this, some historians have answered our question in the affirmative, and foremost among them is Perry Anderson, a formidable Marxist scholar. In an essay ”The Intransigent right and the Sources of Fascism,” which appeared in the London Review of Books in September 1992 and has been often referenced since then, Anderson says of Mises that “there was no more uncompromising champion of classical liberalism in the German-speaking world of the Twenties … [but] looking across the border, he could see the virtues of Mussolini. The blackshirts had for the moment saved European civilization for the principle of private property; ‘the merit that Fascism has thereby won will live on eternally in history.’”

Anderson accurately quotes from Mises’s Liberalism but nevertheless utterly distorts Mises’s view. Mises offers in that book a penetrating criticism of Italian fascism, and only by extracting the quoted sentence from its context, and distorting its meaning, has Anderson been able to portray Mises as a supporter of Mussolini. In what follows, I  will try to explain Mises’s view of fascism, as he expounds this in Liberalism. In doing so, I will  follow the great libertarian  historian and student of Mises Ralph Raico, who addressed the topic in an essay of characteristic brilliance, “Mises on Fascism, Democracy, and Other Questions.”

Mises’s discussion is contained in “The Argument of Fascism,” a section in the first chapter of Liberalism, “The Foundations of Liberal Policy.” Mises maintains that the coming to power of the “parties of the Third International”—i.e., the Communist parties controlled by Soviet Russia—has changed the nature of European politics for the worse, in a way that even World War I did not. Before the Communists came to power, the influence of liberal ideas imposed patterns of restraint on authoritarian forces.

Before 1914, even the most dogged and bitter enemies of liberalism had to resign themselves to allowing many liberal principles to pass unchallenged. Even in Russia, where only a few feeble rays of liberalism had penetrated, the supporters of the Czarist despotism, in persecuting their opponents, still had to take into consideration the liberal opinions of Europe; and during the World War, the war parties in the belligerent nations, with all their zeal, still had to practice a certain moderation in their struggle against internal opposition. (All subsequent quotations are from Liberalism)

Things changed when the Communists came to power.

The parties of the Third International consider any means as permissible if it seems to give promise of helping them in their struggle to achieve their ends. Whoever does not unconditionally acknowledge all their teachings as the only correct ones and stand by them through thick and thin has, in their opinion, incurred the penalty of death; and they do not hesitate to exterminate him and his whole family, infants included, whenever and wherever it is physically possible.

We now come to a part of Mises’s argument that is crucial to understanding his opinion of fascism. He says that some opponents of revolutionary socialism thought they had made a mistake. If only they had been willing to kill their revolutionary opponents, disregarding the restraints of the rule of law, they would have succeeded in preventing a Bolshevik takeover. Mises clearly associates the Fascists with these “nationalists and militarists” and says they were mistaken. Revolutionary socialism is an idea, and only the better idea of classical liberalism can defeat it.

What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence. In order to assure success, one must be imbued with the will to victory and always proceed violently. This is its highest principle. What happens, however, when one’s opponent, similarly animated by the will to be victorious, acts just as violently? The result must be a battle, a civil war. The ultimate victor to emerge from such conflicts will be the faction strongest in number. In the long run, a minority—even if it is composed of the most capable and energetic—cannot succeed in resisting the majority. The decisive question, therefore, always remains: How does one obtain a majority for one’s own party? This, however, is a purely intellectual matter. It is a victory that can be won only with the weapons of the intellect, never by force. The suppression of all opposition by sheer violence is a most unsuitable way to win adherents to one’s cause. Resort to naked force—that is, without justification in terms of intellectual arguments accepted by public opinion—merely gains new friends for those whom one is thereby trying to combat. In a battle between force and an idea, the latter always prevails.

Mises has no use for Fascist domestic policy, and its foreign policy is no better.

That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

But what about the sentence quoted by Perry Anderson? The merit that Mises ascribes to Italian fascism is that it has saved Italy from a Communist takeover, which would have resulted in the application of Bolshevik methods of extermination. It is in that respect, Mises holds, that it has “saved European civilization” and won for itself merit that will “live on eternally in history.” Mises does not claim that only the Fascists could have stopped the Communists; his claim is rather that the Fascists in fact did so. By wrenching a sentence from its context, Anderson has converted a condemnation of fascism into a defense of it. It is as if someone were called a communist sympathizer because he wrote that “Soviet communism has earned eternal glory by saving Europe from Nazi barbarism,” even though the writer was a strong critic of communism. In fact, that is exactly Mises’s view, as readers of Omnipotent Government will recollect.

Mises explicitly says in that book that Soviet Russia should be allowed to expand in Eastern Europe after World War II ends, in order to prevent the rebirth of a strong Germany. Whether he was right or wrong about this is a topic for another day. But it certainly shows that Mises did not prefer Nazism to a Marxist revolution.

Let’s do everything we can to encourage the study of the great Ludwig von Mises! That is our aim at the Mises Institute, which it was my great privilege to found in 1982 and is now headed by our great President, Tom DiLorenzo.

The post The Truth About Mises and Fascism appeared first on LewRockwell.

On March 28, Utah became the first state to ban fluoride from drinking water after Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed legislation to remove the potentially damaging substance from the state’s water supply.

transformative health bills that are quietly making their way through court rooms across the country.

In Utah, the move comes after HHS Secretary Kennedy said that removing fluoride from water is one of his administration’s top priorities. Studies show that fluoride can have dangerous neurotoxic effects that are particularly pronounced in babies, children and expecting mothers.

One day earlier, Iowa’s state House of Representatives passed a bill to restrict using subsidies from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a food stamp program aimed at helping unemployed and low-income Americans. The bill forbids SNAP recipients from using their government aid to purchase ultra-processed ‘junk food.’

The Iowa bill, which passed with a 56-40 vote, mirrors proposals reportedly in the works at a federal level.

But passing the bill in Iowa was not smooth sailing. The American Beverage Association (ABA), among other groups, have been lobbying against any SNAP restrictions.

More Dyes Banned

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey signed legislation banning seven toxic food dyes from food served in the state’s schools. Beginning in 2026, these dyes will be banned on all food sold in the state.

According to media reports, over half of the nation’s states are considering similar bans.

Prior to the current administration, it was difficult for states to take steps to provide healthier food options to K-12 students. One reason: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a federally funded meal program that provides low-cost lunches to students in public and nonprofit schools, administered by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), has strict grounds for school eligibility.

In order to receive federal meal subsidies on a per-student basis, states and local school districts cannot deviate from the NSLP’s nutritional guidelines, unless a waiver is granted by federal agencies.

This is the case, even when states and school districts offer higher quality nutritional standards built around fresh, locally sourced ingredients.

However, both the HHS and USDA Secretaries have indicated an eagerness to grant waivers to states and school districts that are pursuing initiatives to provide better nutrition to students. This marks a major departure from the approach of the previous administration.

Speaking with Governor Morrisey, Secretary Kennedy confirmed that West Virginia will receive a federal waiver to provide healthier food in K-12 schools. Kennedy also said that the federal government will give the state a waiver that allows it to restrict SNAP dollars going to junk food purchases.

Earlier in March, the Texas State Senate unanimously passed Senator Lois Kolkhorst’s SB 25. The bill requires labels on all food sold in Texas to list all ingredients that are legal in the U.S. but banned in Canada and the EU. The deadline for the new labeling will take effect in 2027.

The bill also mandates 30 minutes of physical education in all Texas schools in addition to special courses on nutritional education. Finally, the bill calls for nutrition education for Texas physicians and medical students, to enhance their understanding of diet-related health issues.

The Texas Senate also recently passed SB 314, which restricts over a dozen ingredients in the ultra-processed foods served to students at Texas schools.

MAHA’s chief aim is to make America Healthy again while rolling back the nation’s chronic disease epidemic. What has started as a federal push, encouraged by President Trump and HHS Secretary Kennedy, is now sweeping the country, one state at a time.

This originally appeared on The Kennedy Beacon.

The post MAHA Spreads Its Wings Across America appeared first on LewRockwell.

George Orwell wrote, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Our present era is certainly full of deceit, along with corruption, incompetence, and insanity. When you’re lied to often enough, you lose perspective on what the truth really is. We are lied to continuously.

The recent, all too brief congressional hearing chaired by the lovely Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, on the JFK assassination, brought home this point once again. Only a handful of representatives even bothered to attend the hearing, let alone ask questions. And none of their questions demonstrated a cursory knowledge of the case. Jasmine Crockett, who seems to be front and center of everything now in Congress, basically insinuated that Americans should be happy that the CIA didn’t destroy all the evidence. Another Democrat kept trying to get Jefferson Morley to admit that Oswald was firing shots that day. And Loren Bobert, bless her cute little empty head, confused Oliver Stone with Roger Stone. She must have quite the conscientious staff. Rep. Luna did a commendable job, but is very young and not informed enough to confidently debate anyone on the subject.

Luna said publicly that there were two shooters. Okay, that’s certainly more accurate than saying there was one. Especially when you’re claiming the one was Lee Harvey Oswald, who didn’t fire a weapon that day. Luna, for unknown reasons, highlighted a film being withheld by NBC News, that reveals Oswald “near the vehicle,” in her words. Apparently, she was referring to footage that shows a grainy figure in the corner of the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository building, which some in the research community claim is Oswald. It was an awkward choice of words to say “near the vehicle,” but certainly if the figure was Oswald, that alone exculpates him, because it was taken as shots were being fired, allegedly by Oswald on the sixth floor of the same building. I don’t think one can even determine conclusively if the figure is male or female, but perhaps an enhanced version of the withheld original film would.

Several people told me that Luna should call me to testify. I have been at this for longer than almost anyone still alive, and that includes the three experts who did testify; Oliver Stone, Jim DiEugenio, and Jefferson Morley. I’ve interviewed DiEugenio and we’ve had numerous exchanges on forums over the years. Morley appeared with me on a Travel Channel special about the assassination, and more recently was a panelist alongside me on the Union of the Unwanted podcast. He has become the go-to guy for big platforms, with a resume that includes working for The Washington Post for quite some time. Oliver Stone knows who I am. He has my books, because we have the same publisher, and they send all their books to their big name authors. He even has a signed copy of The Unreals, which I gave to his son Sean Stone, when I appeared on his RT show.

It is frustrating to watch elected officials grapple with the basic facts about such a momentous event, and rely on the absurd disinformation of the court historians. The number of Americans who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy is still a majority, but has dipped significantly since peaking in the 1970s-1980s at close to 90 percent. This makes sense, since most Americans are now historically illiterate. Now, the ones who are awake obviously know Oswald didn’t do it, but we all know that we’re outnumbered by the “Woke,” the unthinking followers, and the disinterested. Smarmy Ben Shapiro further destroyed whatever audience he had left by questioning why anyone should care who killed JFK at this point. After all, it was over sixty years ago. I wonder if Little Ben thinks we should care about another part of history, something that happened over eighty years ago. I’m guessing he feels a bit differently about that.

Back when I was writing lots of poetry, and immersing myself in the old romantic poets, I came across a fascinating poem written by Sir Walter Raleigh around 1592, while he was imprisoned in the notorious Tower of London. Raleigh was eventually executed, and appears to have been a radical man after my own heart. He refers to telling the truth as a “thankless errand.” With everyone determined to “give the world the lie,” Here are a few salient lines from this remarkable poem:

Say to the court, it glows and shines like rotten wood;

Say to the church, it shows what’s good, and doth no good.

If church and court reply, then give them both the lie.

Tell men of high condition, that manage the estate,

Their purpose is ambition, their practice only hate.

And if they once reply, then give them all the lie.

“The Lie” had a profound impact on me as a youth. I was already seeing how pervasive dishonesty was in our society, even in our families. The Devil’s Dictionary was always at my fingertips, and I could understand why Ambrose Bierce called honest men and faithful women the rarest of rarities. I had, of course, discovered the lie of the JFK assassination official story. I would quickly determine this was not an anomaly, and that in fact we had been lied to about everything. The court historians lie to us about history. The highly paid “journalists” lie to us about current events. Even the sports I loved so much all my life were filled with “the lie,” as I am learning more with each word I write of my new book exposing the corruption in that world. I saw first hand how “the lie” permeated the workplace. Corporations and the government both seem to be fueled by “the lie.” There doesn’t appear to be a meritocracy anywhere.

As I hope I’ve demonstrated in my series of hidden history books, Americans are woefully misinformed about their past. They keep falling for new psyops and false flags, because they don’t know about the ones from the past. Their historical knowledge, at this point, is limited to an image of the Founding Fathers as hopelessly dead White men, who mostly owned slaves. Who thought Blacks were a fraction of a human being. I don’t know how many really think that modern Broadway star Alexander Hamilton, father of debt and favorite of international bankers, really was Black, but I’m sure some do. Maybe some think he’s still alive. They believe Lincoln was about as good as a dead White male can be. After all, he freed the slaves. They really don’t know much about the twentieth century, except that Nazis are bad. And still are, even though they were destroyed eighty years ago. They saved Hitler’s zombie brain or whatever. And Rosa Parks wouldn’t sit in the back of a bus. That’s about it.

Our fractional banking system is counterfeit. They lend money that isn’t backed by anything, and that they don’t actually have. That’s definitely part of “the lie.” The Hollywood fantasy about “White Supremacists” being a threat to humble and lovable Black citizens is repudiated by every crime statistic, and every anecdotal experience. Recently, a White honor roll student and high school football star was senselessly stabbed to death by a Black at a track meet. Apparently, he felt “disrespected.” You can’t let anyone, especially someone White, “disrespect” you. You have to react violently. It’s the code of the ‘hood. The code Hollywood and corporate America reinforce constantly. Shut up- a Black woman is talking! This ignorant ghetto creed now permeates society, and has replaced our culture with a mindless anti-culture. And you better respect it, or the anti-culture will kick your ass.

Could anything be a bigger lie than stating children can “change” their gender? Little boys can become girls? That “transgenders” with penises are legitimate female athletes? Hollywood promotes “the lie” that racial stereotypes can be reversed; where Black characters are kind, polite, brilliant, helpful, and wonderful parents, while Whites, especially White males, are like weak, helpless toddlers, but also can join skinhead and 1930s-style gangs, to rule the mean streets of our biggest cities. They also promote the dangerous idea that any female can beat up any male. Well, any White male. I’m sure this has already resulted in deluded young girls being severely injured. Not that our lying media would ever report that. They don’t report anything that contradicts their twisted narrative. The lie. Modern lies are just updated versions of the old Horatio Alger myths. Any boy can grow up to become president. The lie.

While there was at least some upward mobility in the past, it was limited. As I detailed in Survival of the Richest, if you’re born poor, you tend to stay that way. And if you’re born rich, you tend to stay rich. The middle class lifestyle was once the goal of most Americans. The picket fence surrounding your own yard, with little children frolicking about. But with the middle class being squeezed out of existence, what is the goal now for young Americans? The newest video game? Waiting for a more realistic sex bot? I’m not sure they even bother with lying at most jobs now. They can’t even advertise the starting salary. They’ll say it’s “competitive.” Okay, that sounds honest. You’ll work harder and longer for less. It’s an anti-Huey Long world. We demand loyalty but will not be loyal to you. The lie. Just hope you live long enough to be repaid at least some of the money they extorted from you for Social Security.

Read the Whole Article

The post Our World of Universal Deceit appeared first on LewRockwell.

See you the windy levels spread
About the gates of Rye?
O that was where the Northmen fled,
When Alfred’s ships came by.

-Rudyard Kipling, from “Puck’s Song”

“The high tide!” King Alfred cried.
“The high tide and the turn!“

-G.K. Chesterton, from The Ballad of the White Horse

The praises of Alfred the Great have been sung by hosts of poets and historians even apart from Rudyard Kipling and G.K. Chesterton, the latter of whom wrote an entire book-length epic poem in veneration of the great warrior king of the Anglo-Saxons. As to Anglo-Saxon kings, others might come to mind in addition to Alfred, especially the two who became saints, Edmund the Martyr and Edward the Confessor, both of whom were hallowed as patron saints of England until its patronage passed to St. George at the time of the crusades.

Few, however, will remember Athelstan, Alfred’s grandson, who is neither lionized by the poets nor canonized by the Church. As we shall see, he is a warrior king who is perhaps equal in greatness to Alfred and possibly rivals Edmund and Edward in piety.

Athelstan was born in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex around A.D. 894. Five years later upon the death of his grandfather, his father, known to history as Edward the Elder, became king. Edward would rule for 25 years, laying solid political foundations for the kingdom his son would inherit in 924.

Edward is himself largely unsung in terms of historical recognition and has been described by contemporary British historian Nick Higham as “perhaps the most neglected of English kings.”  The medieval chronicler William of Malmesbury judged that Edward the Elder was “much inferior to his father in the cultivation of letters” but “incomparably more glorious in the power of his rule.”

If we take William of Malmesbury’s judgment seriously, we might be tempted to proclaim Edward the Elder as an unsung hero of Christendom, but such a temptation would be a little premature. Unsung hero of England he might be, but he showed no great inclination to promote Christian civilization nor to support the presence of the Church. As William of Malmesbury confessed, he was “much inferior” to Alfred in terms of learning and culture, and contemporary British historian Alan Thacker wrote that Edward “gave little to the church indeed…Judging by the dearth of charters for much of his reign he seems to have given away little at all…More than any other, Edward’s kingship seems to epitomise the new hard-nosed monarchy of Wessex, determined to exploit all its resources, lay and ecclesiastical, for its own benefit.” Clearly this “hard-nosed” king was no hero of Christendom.

Unlike his father, Athelstan was particularly pious, defending the Faith as vigorously as he defended his kingdom. In terms of politics, he would become more powerful than either his father or grandfather, building on the solid foundations they’d laid. Whereas Alfred was the first King of the Anglo-Saxons, having united the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the south of the country, Athelstan would become the first King of the English, following his 927 conquest of York, the last remaining Viking kingdom in England.

It is, therefore, to Athelstan’s reign that we can date the birth of the political entity which we now know as England, prior to which the country had been divided between various Anglo-Saxon regional kingdoms that were Christian and the parts of the country under Viking (pagan) domination.

However, even attributing the foundation of the English nation to Athelstan would not, in itself, make him a hero of Christendom. His heroic status in this respect rests on his piety and his practical efforts to promote Christianity during his reign. One of the most pious of all the Anglo-Saxon kings, he collected relics, founded churches, promoted learning, and laid the foundation for the Benedictine monastic reform that came later in the century.

Read the Whole Article

The post In the Shadow of Alfred the Great appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today’s Daily Telegraph reported that there is a movement in Germany to get back its gold amounting to 1,200 tonnes, held earmarked at the NY Fed. The Bundesbank denied it, expressing complete confidence in the Americans.

Well, they would, wouldn’t they.

The article quotes two politicians who had been pushing for this and/or audits/inspections before Trump was even elected. At its face, the article is therefore speculative. But it was unlikely to be published unless there was more to it than at first appears. We should read between the lines.

Politicians and the Bundesbank as custodian for Germany’s gold are bound to be concerned. But the Bundesbank is in a difficult position. It had problems with the Americans over repatriating just 300 tonnes, first announced in 2013 and not completed until 2017. Apparently, the bar numbers didn’t match Bundesbank records, and Bundesbank officials were previously refused access to inspect their earmarked gold.

The problem is that either the gold is not there, or if it is there it is encumbered by being leased out to other parties. In other words, it has at least two owners with further rehypothecation extremely likely.

We don’t know what the Bundesbank committed to in order to get just 300 tonnes returned over a ridiculously long period. But it is likely that they had to agree to leave the rest with the NY Fed. And does the Bundesbank dare to threaten the entire gold market paper system by renewing demands for the return of more of its gold?

The wider point is that within all the EU’s national central banks which store their gold in New York and elsewhere there are bound to be growing concerns over the security of their earmarked gold in New York. The implications are that the Fed cannot be trusted, and any leasing must be stopped. But for now, they are unlikely to create a crisis by demanding the return of their gold.

I have argued recently that when other central banks as a whole are aggressively acquiring bullion as a means of dumping fiat currencies from their reserves, it makes no sense to permit the NY Fed, the Bank of England, or the Bank for International Settlements to use gold leasing of central bank gold to provide the market liquidity necessary for gold derivative markets to function.

The current flow of gold out of the Bank of England’s vaults almost certainly involved leased gold, because commercial entities store their bullion in LBMA vaults. The comfort afforded to the BoE’s central bank customers by the book entry transfer system, which means leased gold doesn’t leave the Bank’s vault has now been blown out of the water.

Put another way, as these leases fall due, vital liquidity for the paper markets will be withdrawn. Systemic risk in gold derivatives is escalating several notches higher.

Possession is all.

This originally appeared on MacleodFinance Substack.

The post Germany Wants Its Gold Back! appeared first on LewRockwell.

For many Americans, it is an article of faith that a vast and powerful federal government equals a great and strong nation. Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The more powerful the federal government, the weaker the nation. Contrariwise, the smaller and weaker the federal government, the more powerful the nation.

Part of the problem here is that many Americans have been taught to believe that the federal government and the nation are one and the same thing. They aren’t. They are two completely separate and distinct entities.

A good confirmation of this phenomenon is the Bill of Rights. Many Americans believe that it gives Americans their rights. Actually, the Bill of Rights protects the nation — that is, the American people — from the federal government, which confirms that we are dealing with two separate and distinct entities.

The Constitution called the federal government into existence. The type of government it established was what we call a limited-government republic. It was a very small government whose powers were extremely limited — that is, limited to the few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself.

That was how the Framers and our American ancestors wanted it. They wanted a small, weak federal government — one with very few powers.

One of the most important features of this new government was its lack of a vast, permanent military establishment. That was the last thing the Framers and our American ancestors wanted. They knew that a vast-permanent military establishment would convert the federal government into a powerful government. They didn’t want that. They felt that such a powerful government would constitute a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the nation. Thus, they fiercely opposed what they called “standing armies.” That’s why throughout the 19th century, America had a relatively small, basic army.

This unusual governmental structure brought into existence the most unique economic and political system in the history of man. By the time the 1880s arrived, the United States was a land of no income taxation or IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, Federal Reserve, paper money, (minimal) immigration control, gun control, drug war, minimum-wage laws, occupational licensure, (minimal) economic regulations, national-security state, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, torture, indefinite detention, compulsory school-attendance laws, (minimal) public (i.e., government) schooling systems, war on terrorism, foreign wars, foreign aid, foreign interventions, and state-sponsored assassinations.

The result of this unique governmental structure and economic and political system was the most powerful nation in history. The American people were characterized by a strong sense of independence, toughness, self-reliance, and can-do. They put their faith in themselves, in others, in free markets, in voluntary charity, in their families, and in God. They were fearless. No one dared to attack and invade the United States because to do so would be like swallowing a porcupine. The American people were simply too strong, precisely because their government was so small and weak.

It’s worth noting that this one-of-a-kind-system brought into existence the most prosperous and the most charitable nation in the history of mankind. From 1880-1910, real wage rates increased by 50 percent. When people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of weath, the result was the greatest amount of voluntary charity that mankind had ever seen. One man — John D. Rockefeller — actually gave away $500 million in his lifetime.

In the 20th century, everything changed. The federal government was converted into a welfare state, whose purpose was to provide for people and to take care of them. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education grants, farm subsidies, FDIC, and other welfare-state programs ensured that people were taken care of by the federal government.

The money that was used to do this was forcibly extracted from those who were producing wealth. That’s why the income tax and IRS were brought into existence. Moreover, the nation’s monetary system was converted from a gold-coin/silver-coin standard to a paper-money standard managed by the newly created Federal Reserve System, which enabled the federal government to extract more income and wealth from people through monetary debasement (i.e., inflation).

The federal government became the manager, controller, and regulator of the nation’s economy. The best example of this phenomenon was the minimum-wage, whose ostensible purpose was to have the federal government protect the poor working man from the rapaciousness of employers. Another example was the drug war, by which the federal government wielded the power to punish people who ingested, possessed, or sold substances that the federal government hadn’t approved.

The biggest transformation was to a national-security state, which entailed a vast, permanent military-intelligence establishment consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Combined with a new policy of foreign wars, foreign interventions, foreign coups, state-sponsored assassinations, torture, indefinite detention, and war on terrorism, America became a land of perpetual war in the quest for perpetual peace.

Today’s Americans get their sense of toughness vicariously through the vast power of the federal government. Thus, when the federal government threatens or uses military force or economic sanctions or embargoes against other nations, Americans feel like they too are being “tough.” One of their favorite pronouns is “we”— as in “We showed those Iraqis how tough we are when we attacked, invaded, occupied, and ‘liberated’ their country.”

What people failed to notice was that in the process of converting the federal government into an all-powerful, omnipotent government with the power to take care of the citizenry and to keep the citizenry “safe,” the result was a very weak nation — that is, a nation of little serfs who are hopelessly dependent on the federal dole and scared to death of everything, including their own shadows. Imagine the irony: Americans have the most powerful government in history and are the most frightened people in the world.

Look at what the dole has done to people. Huge universities capitulating in the face of possibly having their dole taken away from them. Huge law firms doing the same thing when faced with the possibility of losing market share in the vast federal system.

Look at the seniors. Hopelessly dependent on the Social Security dole, many of them are convinced that they would die in the streets without their dole. That’s what the dole has done. It has weakened people and caused them to place their faith in Caesar, the IRS, and the coercive apparatus of income taxation and the fraudulent apparatus of the Federal Reserve System.

Most Americans are also scared to death that the illegal immigrants, Russians, Reds, Chinese, terrorists, Muslims, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, and Venezuela are coming to get them. They readily buy into the nonsense that these scary boogeymen are already here “invading” America and ready to take them away. That’s why they have accepted and even supported the brutal treatment of immigrants, no questions asked, even though such treatment involves the further destruction of the rights and liberties of the American people. Liberty no longer matters. What matters is to be kept “safe” from the boogeymen.

Our American ancestors hated and rejected everything today’s Americans stand for. If they were suddenly brought back to life, there is no doubt that there would be a civil war for the future direction of our nation. Today’s Americans wouldn’t stand a chance. They are much too weak.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post A Powerful Government and a Weak Nation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Do you remember the James Bond film in which a deranged Soviet General wanted to launch a nuclear war, or Dr. Strangelove, an American deranged general who wanted to do the same?  Well, Dr. Strangelove is still with us, but he is no longer considered insane.

In today’s Pentagon spreading nuclear weapons among allies who lack them in order to conduct an even larger nuclear war is just good war planning. On April 1, and unfortunately it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke, the nominee as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, said that the United States was ready to consider entering into nuclear sharing agreements with more of the country’s NATO allies. “From a military perspective, expanding NATO allies’ participation in the nuclear deterrence mission in some capacity would enhance flexibility, survivability, and military capability. If confirmed, I will work… to evaluate the cost/benefit of such a decision.”  See this.

The nominee said that another benefit of providing nuclear weapons to NATO members who don’t have them is to prevent nuclear proliferation resulting from acquiring them on their own. If too many of our allies have the weapons, the US would not be able to manage the escalation risk.

What Caine said makes sense.  We do not want Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, or Poland launching a nuclear war.  

But what this common sense hides is the absurdity of “managing nuclear war.”

There is a consensus, or close to one, that nuclear war would be lethal to life on the planet.  It calls to mind the novel, A Canticle for Leibowitz, with the spaceship loading with human, animal, and plant life for a distant planet in a short period of time remaining prior to nuclear armageddon on earth.

It is, of course, the Pentagon’s job to be prepared for war.  But as the war the Pentagon is preparing for is unwinnable, why not attempt to prepare for peace?  What cause is worth fighting for it if results in the death of planet Earth?

These thoughts entered the mind of President John F. Kennedy.  JFK had campaigned as a Cold Warrior proclaiming a “missile gap.”  Somehow President Eisenhower, World War II hero and 5-star general had let the Soviets get ahead of us.  Kennedy was rescued from his delusion by the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs.  He refused the request to allow the US Air Force to support the CIA’s Cuban refugee army’s invasion of Cuba. He refused the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s “Northwoods Project”, which called for the US Air Force to shoot down US passenger airliners, staff boats of refugees from Cuba to Florida, and kill Americans on the streets of Miami and Washington, D.C., and blame Castro as justification for a US invasion of Cuba. He rejected the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan for nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.  All of this information is publicly available, but few are aware of it.

Kennedy worked behind the scenes with Soviet leader Khrushchev to defuse the dangerous situation.  Instead of recognizing Kennedy’s leadership, the US military/security complex saw Kennedy as “soft on communism,” a traitor-in-the-making to America who had to be removed from office.  As Kennedy was popular, assassination was the solution.

I agree with James Douglas, Oliver Stone, and all the rest that Kennedy was murdered by the US Security State.  Where I depart from them is over whether it should have been revealed or covered up.  Here facts are not the issue, just judgment, and judgment is not infallible.

I do not believe that anyone on the Warren Commission believed the report.  The entire purpose of the report was to protect the American public from losing confidence in their own government in the midst of a dangerous Cold War with a nuclear-armed opponent in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs. With the balance of power in the world at stake, the United States would have been harmed by official admission that the security agencies of the US government had assassinated its own president.

I agree that today six decades after JFK’s assassination, the truth, long proven by independent investigators, could be officially recognized, and perhaps it will be.

What I will address instead is how the truth could have presented in 1963 if only the American government were up to the task.

Once sworn in, Lyndon Johnson could have said something along the following lines:

“Dear fellow Americans, Our inordinate paranoia, our fear, of the Soviet Union has resulted in our President’s death at the hands of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secret Service, because President Kennedy’s efforts to reduce the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that very recently brought the world close to nuclear war were misperceived by our protective agencies as a sign of dangerous and unwarranted trust in our enemy that left us exposed to nuclear attack. President Kennedy was seen as soft on Communism and possibly a traitor. 

“The fault is not in the CIA and the Joint Chiefs.  The fault is in the Cold War and the deployment of immensely destructive nuclear weapons.  This threat is real, and it must be eliminated.  Our most urgent task is not to prosecute our protective agencies for their misjudgment but to terminate the Cold War and ban the existence of nuclear weapons. Our challenge is to learn how to get along, not how to kill one another.  The tragedy and our grief over our President’s assassination is the fruit of our own paranoia.  Our job is to substitute mutual understaffing and trust for fear and mistrust.  If not, sooner or later the disastrous weapons will be used.”

Nothing like this could happen, because too many people and interests had a stake in an ongoing conflict.  The assassination of JFK put Johnson in the presidency.  It benefitted the power and budget of the military/security complex by blaming the assassination on Oswald, a Soviet agent.  For the Joint Chiefs and the CIA that was a wonderful outcome.  What did they have to gain from Johnson telling the truth and continuing Kennedy’s efforts to reduce hysteria and threats?  When vision was needed, it wasn’t there.

Most disasters in history result from people being incapable of making the right decisions.  Today it is Trump and Putin who are being tested.  How much confidence can we have in either?

The post Will the West’s Paranoia of Russia Destroy the World? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In Sunday’s episode of the Peter Schiff Show, Peter tackles the misguided optimism of the Federal Reserve, the dangers of escalating tariffs, and the troubling signs of entrenched stagflation. Peter takes a critical view of Jerome Powell’s policies, scrutinizes the logic behind rate cuts amidst ongoing inflation, and warns investors that Bitcoin will continue to falter in the coming economic environment as gold gains strength.

Peter begins by highlighting the alarming disconnect between economic data and Fed policy, recalling Jerome Powell’s flippant dismissal of stagflation concerns last year:

So first let me talk about the economic data, because all the economic data points to stagflation, and of course, I’ve been out in front of the stagflation scenario for a long time. I’ve been very critical of the Fed, Powell in particular, for dismissing stagflation. In fact, during his May press conference a year ago, 2024, so almost a year ago, May 1st, he was asked about stagflation, and then he kind of joked and he says, ‘I don’t know what people are talking about—I don’t see the stag, and I don’t see the inflation.’ That kind of made him laugh, and everybody else laughed. I pointed out on this podcast that it’s no laughing matter, because the Fed’s blindness to stagflation, and the comment that there’s no sign of stagflation, is going to go down like ‘subprime is contained’ and ‘inflation is transitory.’

As policy missteps compound, Peter points to the impending car tariffs as a prime example of misguided economic intervention, emphasizing that ordinary Americans will bear the brunt of higher prices:

So we got these car tariffs, which are going to significantly increase the price of cars in the United States. We’ve got these reciprocal tariffs, whatever they’re going to be, that are going to be announced on Tuesday. The market is bracing for this, but nobody is going to eat these tariffs but Americans. We’re going to be paying these higher prices. We’re going to have stagflation, and nobody is prepared for this.

The inevitable reality, he argues, will be a Fed forced into rate cuts even amid rising inflation—an environment disastrous for the U.S. dollar, but highly beneficial to gold. Peter remains consistent in his stance that Bitcoin, unlike a tried and true store of value like gold, will fail investors during this uncertain period:

Now, I think eventually they’re going to cut despite rising inflation. That’s the nail in the coffin for the dollar, and gold goes through the roof because that means real interest rates are plunging, but Bitcoin is going to go down. Like if we have a bear market in stocks, if stocks keep going down, Bitcoin is going to keep going down more. Gold is what’s going up, and just again, obliterating this whole narrative.

Explaining further, Peter warns of the unintended consequences of tariffs on inflation dynamics. Restrictions on imports don’t help the American consumer; instead, they magnify domestic inflationary pressures by reducing goods availability and leaving more money chasing fewer goods at home:

If we import less stuff from abroad because the prices go way up and we can’t afford it, the money that we used to send abroad stays here. And what does that money do? It bids up the prices of what’s here without all the goods coming in. So domestically, we have more money chasing fewer goods, and that puts upward pressure on prices, goods, and services. So domestic money supply means more of our inflation stays here, we don’t export it.

Finally, Peter voices his frustration with mainstream Republican cheerleaders who blindly praise policy moves without considering serious economic repercussions. He notes parallels between the current economic climate and the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis, emphasizing the danger of partisan-driven cheerleading:

So much of what’s going on right now, it’s really bothering me to see all these Republicans just cheerleading everything Trump is doing, talking about how great it is. It reminds me of George Bush’s second term, you know, when they had the financial crisis, and I was going on all these shows that won’t have me on anymore. Now, I was 45 back in 2008, a much younger man. Time flies. But I remember all these guys on Kudlow and the Laffers—Stephen Moore is a friend of mine—but a lot of other people too, that were just cheerleading the Republicans. And I didn’t like it.

This originally appeared on SchiffGold.com.

The post Stagflation Is Here and the Fed Is Clueless appeared first on LewRockwell.

As I have previously documented, the United States is controlled by its billionaires and not by its public; we have an aristocracy not a democracy. (As I had mentioned there, “The breakthrough first study, in 2014, was brilliantly summarized and explained in a 6-minute video here.” It shows by means of graphs what the first study found. And all subsequent such empirical studies have come to the very same conclusion. The evidence is therefore, by now, clear and overwhelming, that America is an aristocracy — of wealth — NOT a democracy that authentically represents the public.)

Furthermore, a major international polling that compared in each of the individual countries the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes” to the question “Does your Government represent you, or not?” showed that in the U.S.-and-allied countries, the percentages who answered “Yes” were far lower than for the average country, and that all 11 of the lowest-scoring (or most dictatorial) countries on that list were in the U.S.-and-allied group. Who will know whether a given country is a dictatorship if the people who live there don’t know it? Will people who have never lived there know more about that? (Of course not.) And their answers to the question “‘In general, do you trust your National media?: Usually, To some extent, Not at all.” for the “Not at all” option, were higher than average for the U.S. and almost all of its allied countries. (However, residents in Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Philippines had the lowest score on that and the highest trust in their news-media. Are we, who don’t live there, better-able to answer that question for them than they are? I don’t think so.)

And all indications are that the head-of-state in the U.S. and in each of its colonies (or ‘allies’) have public-approval ratings that are far below the global average; and, not only this, but two of the countries that the U.S. Government says are dictatorships and must therefore be ‘regime’-changed — Russia and China — actually have the two highest public-approval ratings for their head-of-state, which means that the U.S. Government wants to install a dictator there (because the given target-nation’s public are extremely supportive of their head-of-state, it would have to BE a dictator). And not only that, but on 22 August 2022, I headlined “NATO-Affiliated Poll in 53 Countries Finds Chinese the Most Think Their Country Is a Democracy”. That NATO poll found 83% of the residents in China said “Yes” to “My country is democratic.” It scored #1 of the 53 nations on this. U.S. was worse than average, and was tied at #s 40&41, out of the 53 nations, with Colombia, at 49%. Right above them was Saudi Arabia, at 50%. That’s what the NATO-affiliated poll found. (For some reason, they didn’t publicize it.)

What the political ‘scientists’ understand about democracy is nothing. Though the empirical ones perform an authentic contribution by their empirical findings (such as have been mentioned here), the theoretical political ‘scientists’ (the people who are supposedly trying to UNDERSTAND what the empirical findings in their field actually mean) are still operating on the basis of the opinions of philosophers, and this is to say they’re operating on the basis of opinions INSTEAD OF on the basis of the relevant EMPIRICAL DATA (such as these that have been linked-to here).

So, the field of political science is at around the stage of development that physics was at the time of Galileo, and that biology was prior to Darwin and Mendel. I do not consider this acceptable. But the practitioners do. Even the very definition of what “democracy” means is not yet determined — that word doesn’t yet have any concrete meaning in (doesn’t yet exist in the theory of) political ‘science’, except on a philosophical — i.e., opinion-based — foundation. I greatly respect Jeffrey Sachs and his outstanding empirical works in political science; and, so, on March 31st, I emailed to him

Eric, March 31st:

Subject: A political left that’s controlled by billionaires is fake ‘left’: hypocritical nazism.

Date: March 31, 2025 at 7:27:43 PM EDT

[The opening part of that linked-to article linked to documents that showed that in the U.S. and many other countries it is not the public that control the Government via elections, such as democratic theory alleges, but instead the billionaires who control the Government — the billionaires control the Government much like in former centuries the aristocracy controlled the Government, but now they do it by using different methods. That is the problem, and here was my proposed solution to it in order to be able to produce maybe an AUTHENTIC democracy. This is not a theory but ONLY an hypothesis now, and it would need to be tested:]

I would suggest that it [selection of the U.S. President] should be done by lottery (among all adults) for the legislatures, and that those [lottery-selected] legislators would then have the power to expel from their midst any of them that a two-thirds majority of them vote to expel, and that the entire body will, by majority vote, appoint judges, and will select as the head-of-state, one among themselves who has served in the federal legislature for five years or more. There would be no term-limits, and Parties would be illegal. There woud be no elections. The country would, over time, come to be ruled by professional legislators, who will not be competing against each other. Elections will be replaced by lottery-draws. There will be no “campaigns” to fund. Consequently, over time, the members of the legislature will come to know the strengths and weaknesses of each of the other members. All of the incentives that have caused America to be ruled by a tiny aristocracy of billionaires will have been removed. Just think of it: a country in which billionaires must adhere to the laws, and have no control OVER the laws. THAT would be a truly democratic revolution, even though the public would never vote. It would be a revolutionary revolution. Replacing elections with lotteries is the only way I can think of to get us out of the present situation in which Governments keep going from bad to even worse and are now — throughout at least the U.S. empire — incredibly atrocious. To anyone who opposes this, I ask “And what is YOUR proposed solution?” Whatever that ‘solution’ would be, will be far preferred by the billionaires, over what I have proposed here, which would end the “gravy train” of ‘the elite’.

This is my idea of a political left that’s NOT controlled by billionaires. And as for the political right, that has ALWAYS been representing ONLY the aristocracy — so, a ‘right-wing democracy’ is a self-contradiction: democracy can exist ONLY in a country that authentically has equality before the law — NO one is above the law (there IS no aristocracy).

Eric, April 3rd:

What did you think of my proposal to achieve democracy by replacing elections (voting) with instead a lottery-based system?

Jeff, April 3rd:

I didn’t have time to read your proposal, just the sentence advocating sortition rather than elections. My comments [I hadn’t received any comment from him about this matter; so, I don’t know what he was referring to there] were in response to that.

I do know what the problem is. I’ve been writing about “the problem” for twenty years and more.

Parliaments are better than Presidential systems. Direct democracies might work better than representative democracies. Or sortition, or no democracy. Take your pick. There is no magic in this. Aristotle knew that in 330 BCE. Every formal kind of government can be good or bad. What counts is the virtues of the citizenry.

Eric, April 3rd:

You don’t “know what the problem is.” The problem is that authentic democracy (and Aristotle knew nothing of it, just like every OTHER philosopher has) does NOT require that the public vote and that elections be held — neither for Parliamentarians nor for Presidents. There is a BETTER way, and I described it in this passage, which you refused to read: [I then repeated to him the proposed solution that I had sent to him, which you’ve now read.]

Jeff, April 3rd:

I spend a lot of time on what you write, but I’m busy and don’t read everything that you write. I also don’t like a stream of insults or to be told what I know and don’t. I am writing in shorthand and if it’s not up to your par, so be it. I’ve studied sortition systems for decades. The idea is not new. The issues have been around for centuries. I’ve written books and articles about the corruption of the US political system. I’ve observed many excellent non-democratic systems as well. As for virtues of the citizenry, that’s not blaming the victims. It’s the central problem discussed by philosophers since Confucius, Mencius, and Aristotle. The dynamic relationship between citizens and rulers, and how virtues of the two interact.

Eric, April 3rd:

The discussion that we have had about this matter — which I obviously think is a crucially important matter, important for the history of ideas, and so forth — should be published as an article so that the public may consider it, without any further commentary [from us]. Both you and I have fully stated our respective views on it; and now is the time when I, as a journalist and the person who came up with this idea that you ignore, ought to present it to the general public for their consideration of it.

If you have any objection to this (my moving forward on it today), please tell me ASAP so that it can be done today; or else, if you want to add anything more to it, then I shall include that, so that you will have the last word in it, stated as fully as you wish it to be (in which case I shall be willing to wait for that if you will give me a specified time by which your final word on it will be emailed to me about the matter).

Eric, April 3rd: PS: I was NOT recommending a sortition system. I was recommending replacing elections, and voting, replacing them by the type of lottery system that I described. [By contrast, sortition systems can co-exist along with the holding of elections, sush as was the case in ancient Athens. I was hoping to get into that matter with him — the need to entirely eliminate elections, so that ONLY an unelected legislature will be voting. This wouldn’t exclude their selecting experts to advise them on particular issues, nor would it exclude their taking testimony from the public, but it would exclude the public from the decision-making — and this would be ENTIRELY NEW as a structure to achieve a truly representative Government. That’s what is new about this, but Jeff wasn’t at all interested even in reading what I had presented to him — much less in discussing with me the matter.]

Jeff, April 3rd:

No, please no. This was a private exchange. Not for publication.

Eric, April 3rd:

Then I shall have to paraphrase your statements and directly quote only key phrases from them. I shall explain in the article that you would not allow me to do more than fair-use quotations from you.

Jeff, April 3rd:

If you quote me in a private communication, I simply won’t communicate with you again. I was having a private exchange with you. No more. And hardly a detailed one. Do not infringe on my privacy, please.

Eric, April 3rd:

This is NOT a “private” matter. It is the most important PUBLIC matter that exists — How to Achieve a Democracy. Like I said in my “PS: I was NOT recommending a sortition system. I was recommending replacing elections, and voting, replacing them by the type of lottery system that I described.” You ignored my proposal. You misrepresented what it is. You now apparently want to censor-out from the public discourse our discussion of the most important public matter that exists. You are a public figure — not ONLY a private individual (which I am ONLY). You are furthermore one who is a recognized EXPERT on democracy. We were NOT discussing PRIVATE matters; and, so, there is no issue here that is private — the entire issue — 100% of it — is the mega-public issue of How to Achieve a Democracy.

You cannot have it both ways, Jeff — being the public figure that you clearly are — and whom I have ONLY PRAISED IN PUBLIC, many times — and refusing to so much as address IN PUBLIC your response to an entirely new proposed method to address the biggest PUBLIC ISSUE of them all, How to Achieve a Democracy. You are seeking to censor it, as being merely PRIVATE — which it is NOT. You are making an unfair request to me.

If you are not satisfied with the case that you made in our discussion of How to Achieve a Democracy, then can we just start over on the whole thing, after you finally HAVE gotten around to reading the proposed solution to it, that I had presented? I would be willing to go along with that if you give me a reasonably soon deadline for you to give me your carefully considered answer to my proposed solution — something that you consider publishable (since you apparently don’t think that your previous responses to it were). Indeed, I would be happy if you would do a much better job of it than you have so far done — and your new response would then be the only one that I will go forth with. (However, in that case, I cannot assure you that you will have the last word on the matter, because if you again bring up non-rellevant objections (such as sortition systems), I shall then need to point out — and will document — their irrelevancy to the problem at hand, which is SPECIFICALLY my proposed solution to the problem of How to Achieve a Democracy.

Jeff, April 3rd:

I do understand from what you write that I should not interact with you by email. My email to you was a few quick casual and friendly remarks while sitting at a dinner, not a prepared essay. As I said, I had not then (and still have not) read your proposal, nor am I debating it with you.

——

Those were the communications. I was NOT seeking from him a “debate” but instead his thoughts about my proposed replacement of electoral voting-based ‘democracy’ which has never represented the public but always some aristocracy (of wealth) or else some theocracy (of a religion — which in the Soviet Union was Karl Marx’s philosophy) — replacement of the existing ‘democracies’ by instead the lottery-based system I described, replacing those voting-based ‘democracies’ — replacing all elections and all voting except inside the 100% lottery-based legislature. The very CONCEPT of what “democracy” means is at issue here. Is it NECESSARILY to include voting by the public? In all of the existing self-declared “democratic” U.S. colonies and the U.S., the myth is propagated that “because our Government is elected, it is a democracy” but ALL OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THAT IS FALSE. These Governments do NOT represent the public.

When he said to me “The idea is not new. The issues have been around for centuries.” and then told me that he hasn’t read my proposed solution but knows that it is a sortition system — which it is NOT — then I knew that he simply isn’t seriously interested in the problem of how to achieve a democracy. When he said “As for virtues of the citizenry, that’s not blaming the victims. It’s the central problem discussed by philosophers,” I was stunned to find that he believed that the central problem in political theory is to inculcate ‘virtue’ (whatever that means) into “the citizenry.” He implicitly assumed there that the problems around us (the corruptness that actually controls our Government) are the citizenry, instead of the aristocracy that deceives, controls, and exploits, them (by controlling the Government, the media, and the elite universities and think tanks). When he said that “Direct democracies might work better than representative democracies. Or sortition, or no democracy. Take your pick.” he was alleging that democracy — a Government’s representing its public — isn’t even necessary in order to have a good Government. Of course, the alternatives to a democracy are a Government that instead represents either its aristocracy or its theocracy — a dictatorship. He was saying that it makes no difference: “Take your pick.” I was shocked. I had, I now recognize, erroneously thought that he, like I, is committed in favor of democracy and against dictatorship. Sadly, I was wrong. I had not previously understood him. Now I do.

He had not replied to that article I had sent to him, though he often has commented to me on others I had sent to him; so, I sought, on April 3rd, to ask him what his thoughts on it had been. Actually, I had thought that he would have found it to be more of interest than any I had ever sent to him and to which he had sent me comments, and so I was surprised that he hadn’t commented on this one.

Jeffrey Sachs is an internationally recognized expert on democracy. If he isn’t interested in replacing the existing fake democracies by a new form of Government that perhaps really WILL represent the general public instead of some aristocracy or theocracy (either type of dictatorship), then who WOULD be interested in it? I wonder.

Now that he has indicated to me that he isn’t interested, I invite comments on this problem from ANYONE, and especially from an expert on democracies (but one who — unlike Dr. Sachs — DOES recognize the need for radically new thinking on this vitally important public matter). (There is nothing private about it.)

We have ‘democratic’ Governments that are, and have been for decades, lying to their public about everything and especially about international relations and about their causing wars all over the globe, and how can a democracy be like this? I don’t think it can. Political ‘scientists’ think it can and is — that such war-mongering is basically a problem of a lack of “virtues of the citizenry.”

And, if anyone can explain to me why my proposed solution CANNOT work, then I shall welcome THAT type of input, also. Any way to IMPROVE my proposal will be especially heartily welcomed, from ANYONE. (However, I will not respond to any ad-hominem comments; ONLY to ad-rem ones.)

I can be reached at [email protected].

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.

The post My Proposal for How To Achieve a Democracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

For the first five months of the 2025 fiscal year, federal spending is coming in at the highest level ever. This is true even when we adjust for CPI inflation.

This largely reflects Biden-era spending since the current fiscal year began during October 2024, during the Biden administration. In 2025 dollars, federal spending for the current fiscal year so far has totaled 3.039 trillion dollars. This makes 2025’s spending total the highest ever and it’s coming in above the covid-era total (3.012 trillion) reached during the first five months of fiscal year 2021.

In nominal terms, the growth is even larger with federal spending so far this year coming in at about half a trillion more than the previous all-time high reached during 2021.

This data only covers the period through the end of February so it’s still too early to guess as to the full impact of any spending-cut initiatives coming out of the Trump administration. We do know that, in spite of many claims coming out of the administration, no significant impact can yet be seen in the federal spending data.

Revenue, however, has not been keeping up, so the high levels of spending has also driven ongoing growth in total federal deficits. For the first five months of fiscal year 2025, the federal deficit totals 1.146 trillion in 2025 dollars. That’s the second-highest deficit total on record. Only FY 2021’s total of 1.259 trillion was higher.

This number is likely to only get higher. In spite of much talk about spending cuts and tax cuts during last month’s debate over new spending legislation, the Republican leadership’s own numbers show that the Trump-approved budget under the Republicans will only increase each annual deficit further in coming years.

For this reason, Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie noted he would vote against the Republicans’ proposed budget, and he pointed out that even the best-case scenarios assumed by Republican leaders would still produce a growing deficit and total growing federal debt.

On February 25, Massie posted on X/Twitter that “The GOP budget extends the 5 yr. tax holiday we’ve been enjoying, but because it doesn’t cut spending much, it increases the deficit by over $300 billion/yr. compared to letting tax cuts expire. Over 10 years, this budget will add $20 trillion to US debt.”

The GOP budget extends the 5 yr. tax holiday we’ve been enjoying, but because it doesn’t cut spending much, it increases the deficit by over $300 billion/yr. compared to letting tax cuts expire. Over 10 years, this budget will add $20 trillion to US debt.pic.twitter.com/JZ2tDoTHI6

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 25, 2025

The rosy predictions for future deficits, as is usual for government budget claims, assumes there will be no recession in coming months or years, since a recession would lead to falling tax revenues and a ballooning of federal debt.

Massie was also dismissive of the Republican leadership’s claims that the GOP congress would cap discretionary spending and then spend at the rate of inflation after that. “That has never happened,” Massie correctly noted.

Massie also explained that much of the Republican plan is built on spending and deficit cuts “over ten years.” For anyone who is actually paying attention, however, it’s clear that these ten-year plans for spending and deficit reduction are little more than smoke and mirrors. “ After all, no Congress can bind a future congress to any budgetary plan. Congress, at any given time simply spends as it wishes. Thus, Massie concludes that “Anything beyond the third year [in a ten-year budget plan] never happens” He’s right.

As it is, the federal government continues to hurtle toward a 40-trillion-dollar debt total. Although the Trump administration touts its efforts to cut spending via the elimination of some relatively minor government departments, the fact remains that cuts to unpopular discretionary spending is not enough. To make cuts to popular programs like defense spending, Social Security, and Medicaid. Needless to say, this is unlikely to happen.

The post Federal Spending in 2025 Is on Track To Be the Highest Ever appeared first on LewRockwell.

As a prepper, I’m continuously looking for “intel” that can help me be more self-reliant and a better protector of myself and my family.

Truth is, it’s all around us – but often invisible to those who are blind to see the subtle lessons that real life makes available for us.

Take Venezuela for example…

By now, it’s become one of the most humorous (or humorless) comments ever suggested on national television…

Trump’s debate comment about Haitian immigrants “eating dogs and cats” – thrown out as political “fear-porn” – first shocked, and then amused, a head-scratching American public.

But while many may laugh at this shocking statement as “extreme” and residents of the Springfield, OH town deal with the fallout of the political theater, the background to this concept is more real than most even know about.

You see…

Eating Dogs And Cats Isn’t A “Culture” Thing – For Venezuelans During Their Economic Collapse, It’s Been A “Forced Survival” Thing, And…

Here’s What The American Public Will Never “Get” About Doing The Unthinkable When Your Life Is On The Line… 

It’s no secret that Venezuela has been a petri dish for observing the various stages of “collapse”.

Once an oil-rich country, a combination of factors – including poor leadership, government corruption, and economic mismanagement – triggered a downward spiral that began in 2010 and has affected the life of the average Venezuelan on all levels…

• More than half of Venezuelans didn’t have enough income to meet their basic food needs.
• By 2021, 95% of the population was living in poverty
• 77% of these lived under extreme poverty
• 20% of Venezuelans (5.4 million) had left the country just to find a way to feed themselves and their families

Chants of “We are hungry!” echoed through the streets of Venezuela and in front of barren supermarkets.

People resorted to hunting dogs, cats, pigeons, and anything they can capture in order to put food on their family’s table.

Delivery trucks were stopped at rogue checkpoints and looted for the food and other supplies they contained.

There were even verified reports that citizens were “hunting” zoo animals as these wild beasts started to waste away behind the fences of public attractions that could no longer care for these animals.

In our modern society where hot meal is just a cellphone call away for a fast delivery, extreme poverty and hunger is a foreign concept for most Americans.

It’s easy to say what you “would” do under such extreme circumstances – but the fact is, you don’t know, until you HAVE to know.

And Venezuelans know what this life looks like…

By 2017, Almost 75% Of Venezuela’s Population Had Lost An Average Of Over 19 lbs Due To Lack Of Food!

The ultimate end-result for Venezuela’s collapse comes down to “survival” at its most basic nature.

Food at supermarkets went from insanely expensive… to scarce… to gone.

Looting of grocery stores pharmacies, shopping malls, and food delivery trucks have become common as food supplies have dried up into a state of emergency.

And while looting grocery stores has been “accepted” by the citizens, stealing from individuals has turned violent.

In one case, a man who was caught robbing fellow citizens was the victim of “mob justice” when passers-by beat him and set him on fire before police could arrive.

Not only is this a stern warning sign that hard times are ahead… but it also gives you a glimpse into how people, governments, and “security” will react in the absence of basic resources.

Now, if you’ve made it this far in the story, you may be thinking that this could never happen in the good ‘ol US of A, right?

Well Warrior, think again…

Read the Whole Article

The post Extreme Starvation Triggered Food Lines Miles Long… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Western Journal

The post IRS Receives Report Detailing ‘Sufficient Grounds’ for Gates Foundation to Lose Tax-Exempt Status appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

A tutorial in “ How To Decimate Humanity”.

The post The UK Is a Sociopathic Fascist State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

Loomer Unleashed

The post The 2014 Sinister Symbiosis of Hunter Biden, Metabiota,CIA,DoD, Ukraine,Africa appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Ben Bartee

The post Trouble in MAHA Paradise? RFK and Trump Teams Allegedly at Odds Over Measles Response appeared first on LewRockwell.

Saint Hillary and the Religious Left, A Classic Essay by Murray N. Rothbard

The post Saint Hillary and the Religious Left appeared first on LewRockwell.

Due to policies by the governing class, the United States military has been delibertly weakened and with the abysmal failed withdraw of our troops from Afghanistan (the death of empires) the image of the United States has been faltering. The image of GOD is still a white man, Either Santa Claus with a sweet bubbly effervescent coca cola giving you a feel good to prey upon your emotions to get you to buy into the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE whose image is of GOD a white man General George Washington, who’ll sacrifice himself and his family to set us FREE or the image of CHRIST on the cross. Whom we’ll sell off for our shekels, blame it on the state take HIS name in vain and blame HIM for all our ills. Right now with the monetary system and the collapse of the clown show in this family circus. It was deliberately planned out. I could name names and show you the plan and go through the HIStory, but the current plan is with NAFTA the US military jointly trained with soldiers from 3rd world nations here in the US and in their home country and then the “elite” went to jointly train in Israel. Then those soldiers were allowed to immigrant into the US and receive sweetheart deals for education and to make businesses. Then they allowed for the free flow of their hard earned dollar to be sent home and to facilitate the rest of their family coming in. Meantime the monied class use this to prop up wall street and the war machine. The Goal from China who thinks and plans in 100 year increments is to remove from the US the finest of Fruits and the Intelligences that create and produce and to render us obsolete, collapsing the United States FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE, then all the foreign nationals here in the United States, will switch teams to who ever holds the gold so they can eat, and they’ll wear the UN blue hats, to control what is left. China and Russia have both allegedly been buying and storing gold and they are planning on bringing back a “gold” backed state owned cryptocurrency with digital and societal social credit scores to keep everyone in line and turn us into chattel slaves. They use the division of gender, sexual orientation and the individuals own belief in whatever faith they hold to divide and conquer us. I don’t know what else to do. Because all trade wars end up in shooting wars, and wars good for business, but with the coming forced bankruptcy and collapse of USA, Inc which we’ve enjoyed and lived high on the hog with thanks to the sacrifices of all our family members that came before us.

The post A House divided will always fail appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

NY Times

The post U.S. Strikes in Yemen Burning Through Munitions With Limited Success appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Tim McGraw.

The post California Governor Newsom’s Plan to Destro on the Eel River and Destroy Communities appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks Andy Thomas.

The post Zionism Is Rebellion Against God appeared first on LewRockwell.