Aggregatore di feed

It looks like the beltway libertarians at places like Reason and Cato have no interest in explaining the libertarian position on naturalization and citizenship.

Try an internet search of the phrase “libertarian position on naturalization and citizenship”—or some similar variation of those words. What you will find is a wide array of articles on immigration from the usual “libertarian” sources. But, that hardly answers our question since immigration and naturalization are two very different things. These articles often mention the words “citizenship” and “naturalization” in passing. But they never explain why, based on libertarian principles, we should be restrictionist or expansionist on granting citizenship to migrants.

Consider, for example the recent rash of articles on birthright citizenship at Reason. Every single article that I’ve seen is simply an article using legal positivist claims to support the status quo. See here, here, and here, for example. The “debate” is little more than lawyers stating what they think the written law says with the implied conclusion that birthright citizenship—and, presumably expanded naturalization—is good because the US Constitution says so. This is far cry from arguing in favor of expanded naturalization based on actual libertarian principles. The US Constitution is many things, but it’s certainly not a proxy for laissez-faire and libertarianism.

So, what is the libertarian position on naturalization and citizenship? It can’t be the same thing as the position on immigration. Immigration, after all, is closely tied to the matter of property rights. Citizenship and naturalization, on the other hand, aren’t about property rights at all. It is, therefore, not at all clear that we must favor more citizenship or more naturalization in the name of freedom or free markets. In fact, there is good reason to believe that an expansionist view on naturalization and citizenship increases state power at the expense of our freedoms.

Property Rights vs. Naturalization “Rights”

What is the difference between immigration and naturalization?

Immigration is the process of human beings moving from one place to another. In the current context, this nearly always means migration across an international boundary. Immigration policy, therefore, is the process of restricting—or not restricting—the movement of these persons. In practice, the question of immigration policy necessarily raises the question of whether or not government authorities ought to restrict migration by various regulations. Immigration regulation necessarily involves the regulation of property, whether we’re talking about the property of the migrant—in his physical person—or the property of landlords and employers (and other market participants) who seek to contract with migrants.

Naturalization is something different altogether. Naturalization is the process by which persons gain access to political institutions. This requires an administrative act of a government agency. Citizenship can bring with it greater access to taxpayer-funded amenities like the welfare state, but the most crucial aspect of citizenship, in democratic states, is that citizenship provides access to the ballot box and to public office. Unlike immigration policy, naturalization policy does not involve the regulation or property.

Indeed, citizenship is not any type of property and there is, therefore, no natural right to citizenship. In the libertarian view of property, one can acquire property either through homesteading or through contract. Citizenship, in contrast, cannot be obtained through the same means of obtaining property. One cannot “homestead” citizenship or purchase it from the “owner” of citizenship in the private sector.

Moreover, property exists in nature regardless of the existence of civil governments or states.  Citizenship, however, does not exist independent of government institutions at all. Citizenship is fundamentally a creature of the state.

This important distinction between bona fide property and citizenship is clear in the real world, as demonstrated by the fact that, worldwide, many millions of immigrants are free to live and work in places where they are not citizens. In the United States, for example, countless non-citizens are free to own property, hold a job, and travel freely. It is not necessary to become a citizen to enjoy natural property rights or even to enjoy procedural rights such as due process rights for criminal trials. In other words, non-citizens can enjoy the same property rights that citizens enjoy.

Do Libertarians who Favor Expanded Naturalization Have an Argument other than “The Constitution Says So”? 

It is difficult to find articles by libertarian writers that even acknowledge these distinctions. Even fewer attempt to address it in any detail. The Mises Institute is a rare exception to this. Murray Rothbard provides some brief comments on the artificial nature of citizenship as a product of state power, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe has a few paragraphs on the topic. I have an article covering it here.

With the exception of a handful of Rothbardians, libertarians have been virtually silent when it comes to making a specifically libertarian case for or against naturalization. This has apparently been the case for quite a while since, back in 2012, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies publicly asked—not snarkily, but earnestly—if there is a libertarian position on citizenship at all.

At the same time, Krikorian did note that in exactly one case he had personally encountered a libertarian who acknowledged the difference between naturalization and immigration. According to Krikorian:

[T]he only time I recall a libertarian addressing the citizenship issue … was Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation. During a panel we were both on Hornberger was challenged that immigrants would vote for socialism; he responded that immigration and citizenship are separate issues, and that immigrants shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to naturalize and vote …

Assuming this anecdote is true, Hornberger is correct on the matter. Like Rothbard, he also gets to the core and key issue of naturalization and citizenship: voting.

This voting issue was also acknowledged, very briefly, in an article by Sheldon Richman, in one of the rare cases where a libertarian has attempted to argue for expanded citizenship on libertarian grounds. Unfortunately, like most articles by libertarians ostensibly about citizenship, it’s mostly an article about immigration mixed in with a bit of legal positivism. However, near the end of the article, Richman admits that the article is really just advocating for immigration and he says “The case presented here might seem to justify no more than legal residency.” To remedy this, Richman provides exactly three sentences on the matter of naturalization. He writes:

What about citizenship? To take that step, one need only consider that a legal resident is subject to the government’s power to tax and regulate. Since his bid for exemption from U.S. government impositions would not be recognized, we are forced to the second-best disposition, namely, that the legal resident ought to have a say—as small as it is—over government policy, that is, the privileges and immunities of citizens.

This seems to be all we’re going to get from immigration expansionists on the topic of citizenship, and it is only a minor afterthought following 800 words of appeals to Constitutional authority. But, at least Richman has bothered to say something about the topic based on an appeal to some sort of presumably libertarian principle.

Every single other “libertarian” article on citizenship I have seen relies solely on legal arguments or, in some rare cases, appeals to the practical benefits of expanded citizenship. (Here’s one that says expanded naturalization is good because it helps “assimilate” immigrants, as if assimilation has something to do with libertarian goals.)

There are a couple of problems with Richman’s very short argument, though. First of all, Richman does not in any way establish that citizenship is a property right of any kind. As such, “protecting” this non-right of citizenship is not mandated by any libertarian principle. This is not necessarily a fatal problem. A libertarian argument could still reasonably advocate for more naturalization on the prudential and pragmatic grounds that expanded naturalization limits state power. That may be Richman’s tactic here.

Yet, it is not at all apparent that the extension of citizenship and naturalization have served to limit the size or scope of the state anywhere. Certainly, the example of expanded citizenship during the French Revolution points in exactly the opposite direction. Indeed, citizenship has historically been an important tool in building the modern centralized state.

Moreover, if expanded citizenship means an extended franchise—which it does in the modern West—then an argument in favor of expanded citizenship would rest on evidence that an expanded franchise has limited state power. It seems that exactly the opposite has happened. Indeed, it is probably not a coincidence that the total war and totalitarianism of the twentieth century closely followed the rise of the modern democratic state.

Richman tells us that citizenship and the vote is a means of residents protecting themselves from the excesses of government taxation and regulation. Yet, in the United States, an ever-expanding franchise has caused—or at least failed to prevent—a multi-fold increase in the burden of taxes and regulations.

It is likely that the early libertarians like the Levellers and John Locke—who opposed the idea of an unlimited franchise—were right all along. The reasons for this were put into a modern context by Ludwig von Mises who showed in 1944 that that once a sizable portion of the population becomes accustomed to demanding material benefits from the state, then the size of the state will only grow.

So, it appears that the expansion of naturalization and citizenship are not justified by any libertarian claim, whether rights-based or pragmatic. This may be part of why most libertarian pundits so often avoid the issue altogether.

The post Is There a Libertarian Position on Citizenship? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Gateway Pundit

 

The post Zelensky Has NO Friends in Trump Team, They Want Him Gone appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

 

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato-leurodollaro-f30)

Si è parlato molto della cosiddetta “creatura di Jekyll Island”, come è intitolato l'omonimo libro di Edward Griffin, ma molto poco della sua controparte inglese. Eppure è stata quest'ultima a dare lo spunto per la creazione della prima, senza contare che con il suo grado d'influenza (molto probabilmente) l'ha anche controllata... almeno fino al 2022. Piuttosto che usare il termine “spunto”, sarebbe meglio dire “spinta”. Nel mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, ho permesso ai lettori di svelare il cosiddetto mistero dell'attività bancaria ombra, dando altresì uno sguardo a come le azioni della FED fossero eterodirette oltreoceano. Infatti nella Prima Parte di questo saggio abbiamo sondato la leva economica con cui la cricca di Davos, fino all'entrata in scena dell'SOFR, ha praticamente usato la banca centrale americana come banca di riserva mondiale. Studiando l'evoluzione di queste ultime è facile capire come sia nata la “National Reserve Association”, ovvero il progenitore della Federal Reserve. Paul Warburg, uno dei co-creatori della FED, era stato a lungo un consulente non ufficiale della National Monetary Commission e aveva pubblicato diversi articoli in cui parlava della necessità di un istituto bancario centralizzato. I principali quotidiani avevano pubblicato articoli a sostegno delle sue opinioni, tra cui il Washington Post del marzo 1913 intitolato “Warburg Wants Elastic Currency”.

Pressione sociale attraverso la stampa, in particolar modo quella finanziaria, un metodo mai caduto in disuso visto che ancora oggi è protagonista nel modellare l'opinione pubblica. E su questo lo zampino degli inglesi è sempre stato presente, dato che il loro livello d'infiltrazione nel tessuto americano era pervasivo. Piuttosto che governare come sovrani avrebbero governato come “alleati”. Infatti, a tal proposito, è propedeutico studiare una “creatura” di cui s'è sempre parlato poco, ma che non ottiene le stesse attenzioni della FED. Ormai lo slogan “End the FED” sta diventando mainstream, solo che la sua controparte inglese non è altrettanto colpita da tali esortazioni. Terminare la prima senza terminare la seconda, oppure la BCE, significherebbe (e avrebbe significato) spianare la strada alla cricca di Davos. I motivi di questa affermazione sono giustificati all'interno del mio libro, quindi non mi ripeterò qui. Infatti la risposta degli Stati Uniti sarà una regionalizzazione dei poteri della Federal Reserve, in modo che un qualsiasi attore malevolo in futuro non potrà trovare un honeypot a cui attingere com'è stato in passato. Sforzi, questi, coadiuvati da una narrativa favorevole a Bitcoin, destinato a diventare reserve money (ruolo la cui importanza è stata sottolienata nella Prima Parte di questo saggio).

La Banca d'Inghilterra, fondata nel 1694, è un'istituzione monumentale nella finanza globale. Spesso etichettata come la prima banca centrale del mondo moderno, è nata per necessità: verso la fine del XVII secolo la Gran Bretagna era coinvolta nella costosa Guerra dei 9 anni contro la Francia e il re Guglielmo III era alla disperata ricerca di fondi. La soluzione fu una nuova istituzione finanziaria che avrebbe prestato denaro al governo in cambio di una carta reale (un permesso speciale del re che dava alla Banca il potere di emettere denaro e gestire il debito del governo). Questo concetto, capeggiato dal finanziere scozzese William Paterson e da un gruppo di ricchi mercanti, fu il seme da cui sarebbe cresciuta la Banca d'Inghilterra. A differenza di qualsiasi cosa vista prima, consentiva al governo inglese di prendere in prestito ingenti somme di denaro e abilitava la Banca d'Inghilterra a emettere bancanote coperte dalle sue riserve.

È importante capire che la Banca d'Inghilterra non è stata la prima banca del suo genere: gli olandesi avevano già fondato la Banca di Amsterdam nel 1609. Tuttavia le due istituzioni erano fondamentalmente diverse. La Banca di Amsterdam era principalmente una banca di deposito, progettata per portare ordine nel caotico mondo monetario della Repubblica olandese. Non emetteva prestiti allo stato, né si occupò della gestione del debito sovrano come avrebbe fatto la Banca d'Inghilterra. Invece la Banca di Amsterdam era essenzialmente una stanza di compensazione per il commercio internazionale, offrendo ai mercanti un modo affidabile e stabile per conservare il loro denaro e regolare i conti. Il suo ruolo era la stabilizzazione dell'economia olandese e la sua influenza nel mondo della finanza pubblica fu limitata. La Banca d'Inghilterra, al contrario, nacque dall'esigenza di finanziare lo stato e fu progettata fino dal principio per essere un prestatore di ultima istanza. Inizialmente il suo ruolo era modesto, principalmente prestiti al governo inglese, ma con la crescita del potere economico e militare della Gran Bretagna, crebbe anche l'importanza della BoE. All'inizio del XVIII secolo la Banca d'Inghilterra aveva iniziato a emettere banconote che circolavano più di oro e argento nelle transazioni quotidiane; queste banconote erano un passo verso un sistema finanziario più fluido, consentendo un commercio più efficiente senza la necessità di metalli fisici.

Nel frattempo le banche commerciali in tutta l'Inghilterra iniziarono a proliferare: a metà del XVIII secolo c'erano circa 300 banche private in Inghilterra, le quali offrivano credito a imprese e privati. L'emissione di banconote, che pur non essendo universalmente accettate, facilitò il commercio e gli scambi locali. Creò anche un sistema monetario frammentato, in cui la fiducia nel valore di una banconota dipendeva fortemente dalla reputazione della banca che le stampava. A differenza di una valuta nazionale standardizzata, le banconote private erano spesso accettate solo localmente e potevano non essere riconosciute in altre regioni. Ad esempio, le banconote emesse da una piccola banca rurale in Devonshire difficilmente sarebbero state accettate a Londra, o persino nelle contee vicine. Questa mancanza di universalità complicò il commercio oltre i confini locali, aumentando i costi di transazione e rallentando l'efficienza economica. L'emissione eccessiva di banconote fu un altro problema: durante il panico finanziario del 1793, numerose banche private fallirono poiché avevano emesso molte più banconote di quante ne potessero riscattare in oro.

Inoltre il valore di queste banconote poteva fluttuare in base alla salute finanziaria della banca che le stampava, creando ulteriore incertezza. Se una banca falliva o le sue riserve erano inadeguate, le sue banconote potevano perdere valore, minando la fiducia nel sistema monetario. Questa vulnerabilità alle corse agli sportelli e ai crolli bancari rendeva il sistema intrinsecamente instabile. Il sistema bancario decentralizzato poneva anche delle sfide di coordinamento: senza un'autorità centrale che regolasse l'emissione, il rischio di sovraemissione (che portava all'inflazione) o di sottoemissione (che causava carenze di credito) era significativo. Le banche concorrenti a volte emettevano banconote con denominazioni o standard incompatibili, complicando ulteriormente il commercio e la contabilità. Le banche commerciali come Barings e Rothschild & Co. svolsero un ruolo fondamentale nel finanziamento delle rotte commerciali, dei grandi progetti infrastrutturali e dell'impero della Gran Bretagna.

Il XVIII secolo segnò un periodo di trasformazione per il sistema finanziario britannico, poiché istituzioni come la Banca d'Inghilterra divennero parte integrante delle ambizioni della nazione. La BoE svolse il ruolo di principale operatore del debito pubblico, raccogliendo £1,2 milioni nel suo anno di fondazione. Nel tempo, si ramificò in prestiti commerciali limitati, come lo sconto di cambiali per i mercanti (acquistando cambiali a breve termine dai detentori prima della scadenza), i quali avevano spesso bisogno di denaro rapido per finanziare le loro operazioni. Vendendo la cambiale a una banca a sconto, potevano accedere immediatamente alla liquidità e ampliare le proprie reti commerciali. Nel 1742 la Banca d'Inghilterra formalizzò queste operazioni per stabilizzare i mercati, consolidando il suo ruolo nella gestione della liquidità durante le crisi.

La rivalità della BoE con la South Sea Company all'inizio del XVIII secolo ne espanse l'influenza. Entrambe le istituzioni gareggiavano per gestire il debito pubblico della Gran Bretagna, comeptizione culminata con la South Sea Bubble del 1720. Al centro della sua presunta proposta di valore c'era l'asiento, un contratto che garantiva alla Gran Bretagna il diritto esclusivo di fornire schiavi africani alle colonie spagnole sotto l'illusione di opportunità illimitate in una regione mitizzata come El Dorado. Gli investitori si accalcarono, attratti dalle partnership della South Sea Company con istituzioni influenti come la Royal Navy e la Royal African Company. Nel 1719 gli intrecci finanziari della South Sea Company con il governo inglese si approfondirono man mano che si indebitava di più; il Parlamento autorizzò un prestito di £7 milioni come parte del piano della società di consolidare il debito pubblico. Membri della corte reale, parlamentari e persino il re Giorgio I erano azionisti, conferendole un'aria di legittimità intoccabile. Sotto le promesse dorate, però, si celava ben altro: la società non aveva la competenza per le sue iniziative, in particolare nel commercio degli schiavi, e si affidava a partnership fragili e a un'ambizione smisurata. Il mercato azionario in forte espansione stimolò le imitazioni, come le società che sostenevano di estrarre la luce del sole dai cetrioli. L'euforia si trasformò in frenesia e lo scoppio della bolla nel 1720 devastò gli investitori, dagli aristocratici ai piccoli speculatori. Anche Isaac Newton era tra gli investitori. Inizialmente vendette le sue azioni, assicurandosi un profitto di circa £20.000, però in seguito vi investì di nuovo a un prezzo più alto, finendo per subire perdite significative.

Lo scoppio della bolla South Sea ebbe profonde implicazioni per l'economia britannica, facendo sprofondare il sistema finanziario della nazione. La Banca d'Inghilterra intervenne acquistando debito pubblico da investitori in difficoltà e iniettando liquidità nel mercato. Questo intervento segnò una prima affermazione del suo ruolo come “stabilizzatore finanziario”. Il Parlamento, riconoscendo la fragilità del sistema finanziario, approvò una legge per limitare la formazione di iniziative speculative e rafforzare la supervisione delle società per azioni, tuttavia queste misure fecero poco per affrontare le vulnerabilità sottostanti nel quadro monetario della Gran Bretagna. Il sistema finanziario, pur essendo innovativo, era tutt'altro che perfetto. Questa espansione dei poteri e delle capacità della BoE continuò nei secoli successivi. Il XVIII secolo fu trasformativo, poiché le permise di emettere banconote. Le prime furono introdotte nel 1695 ed erano relativamente semplici nel design, costituite da tagli scritti a mano su carta recante il sigillo della Banca d'Inghilterra. Ogni banconota richiedeva la firma manuale da parte di uno dei cassieri della BoE, rendendo il processo laborioso e le banconote altamente vulnerabili alla contraffazione. Quest'ultima divenne un problema serio a metà del XVIII secolo, con banconote false che minavano la fiducia delle persone nella moneta cartacea. La Banca d'Inghilterra rispose adottando diverse misure di sicurezza innovative:

• Filigrane (1697): le prime banconote presentavano filigrane rudimentali come deterrente di base. Nel 1801 le filigrane divennero più sofisticate, incorporando modelli unici per rendere la falsificazione più difficile.

• Disegni intricati (1797): la BoE iniziò a stampare banconote con incisioni complesse e sottili. Questi disegni erano pensati per essere difficili da replicare con le limitate tecnologie di stampa dell'epoca.

• Tecniche di stampa standardizzate (1725): sebbene inizialmente scritte a mano, si passò gradualmente alle banconote parzialmente stampate, riducendo il rischio di errore umano e falsificazione. Verso la fine del XVIII secolo le banconote stampate divennero lo standard, consentendo una maggiore uniformità e sicurezza.

Durante le guerre napoleoniche la contraffazione divenne uno strumento di guerra economica. Si dice che il governo francese orchestrò falsificazioni su larga scala di banconote britanniche, con l'obiettivo di destabilizzarne l'economia. Queste banconote contraffatte, spesso contrabbandate in Gran Bretagna tramite simpatizzanti o navi catturate, crearono panico e sfiducia nella cartamoneta. La contraffazione, però, non era limitata agli attori stranieri: le pressioni economiche delle guerre, unite alla mancanza di occupazione, spinsero molti individui a falsificare banconote. All'inizio del XIX secolo si stimava che nella sola Inghilterra venissero perseguiti annualmente fino a 300 casi di contraffazione. Questa cifra probabilmente minimizzava la portata reale del problema, poiché molte falsificazioni non venivano rilevate o denunciate. Al culmine della crisi della contraffazione, si stimava che il 10% di tutte le banconote in circolazione della Banca d'Inghilterra fossero false. Ricorda vagamente qualcosa... come l'eurodollaro ad esempio.

Il governo inglese non prese bene tali contraffazioni e, tra il 1805 e il 1818, più di 500 persone furono giustiziate in Gran Bretagna. Sebbene il monopolio della Banca d'Inghilterra sull'emissione di banconote non sarebbe stato formalizzato ufficialmente fino al Bank Charter Act del 1844, la sua reputazione di istituzione più affidabile in un ambiente finanziario altrimenti instabile stava già diventando evidente. Entro la fine del XVIII secolo la Gran Bretagna sarebbe stata sulla buona strada per diventare una potenza globale e la Banca d'Inghilterra avrebbe consolidato la sua posizione di forza stabilizzatrice del sistema finanziario del Paese.

Un altro capitolo cruciale nella storia della Banca d'Inghilterra fu il finanziamento delle guerre, in particolare delle guerre rivoluzionarie e napoleoniche (1793-1815) che alla fine costrinsero la Gran Bretagna ad abbandonare il gold standard nel 1797. In quel periodo cominciò a essere chiamata “The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street”, soprannome derivante da una vignetta satirica del 1797 a firma di James Gillray. La raffigurazione satirica rifletteva la relazione tesa tra la BoE e il governo inglese durante le guerre contro la Francia: mentre l'amministrazione Pitt attingeva sempre più alle riserve auree della Banca d'Inghilterra per finanziare la guerra, la capacità della banca centrale inglese di sostenere i pagamenti in oro finì sotto una forte pressione. Nel 1797 la situazione raggiunse un punto di rottura, culminante con la sospensione dei pagamenti in oro. I conflitti richiesero finanziamenti immensi e la Banca d'Inghilterra divenne il principale finanziatore dello sforzo bellico britannico, espandendo il suo ruolo di gestore del debito sovrano. Alla fine delle guerre napoleoniche era diventata l'istituzione dominante nella finanza britannica, gestendo quasi tutto il debito sovrano a lungo termine e supervisionando la politica monetaria della nazione.

Mentre la Gran Bretagna avanzava nel XIX secolo, visse un periodo di rapida crescita economica ed egemonia globale noto come “Età dell'oro”: la Rivoluzione industriale stava trasformando il Paese e l'impero britannico si stava espandendo rapidamente. La sterlina divenne la valuta di riserva mondiale, uno status che rifletteva il predominio della Gran Bretagna nel commercio e nella finanza globali. Tuttavia il percorso non fu facile. Nel 1866 emerse un panico di massa che riaccese i timori sulle vulnerabilità del sistema bancario a riserva frazionaria. Fu innescato dal fallimento catastrofico di Overend Gurney & Co. e si trasformò rapidamente in una crisi a tutto campo. L'ascesa e la caduta di Overend Gurney & Co. è una delle storie finanziarie più drammatiche della Gran Bretagna vittoriana. Fondata nel 1800 dal banchiere quacchero Samuel Gurney, la società crebbe da piccola banca provinciale fino a diventare il principale broker di cambiali di Londra nel 1820. A metà del XIX secolo Overend Gurney era parte integrante dell'economia industriale britannica, elaborando transazioni per un valore fino a metà del debito nazionale del Regno Unito all'epoca. Tuttavia il successo dell'azienda generò compiacimento e comportamenti rischiosi: fece investimenti speculativi nelle ferrovie e nel commercio estero, mal gestiti e mal programmati, che ne prosciugarono le risorse. Nel 1865 si diceva che le perdite superassero le £500.000 all'anno. In un disperato tentativo di rimanere a galla, l'azienda divenne una società per azioni, raccogliendo £5 milioni dal capitale pubblico, sebbene gli investitori non fossero informati del pericolo finanziario dell'azienda. Nonostante ciò le sue iniziative speculative continuarono a sgretolarsi.

Il 10 maggio 1866 Overend Gurney sospese i pagamenti, scatenando il panico che sarebbe passato alla storia come “Black Friday”. Oltre 200 banche fallirono nella crisi che ne seguì. In risposta la Banca d'Inghilterra intervenne, agendo come prestatore di ultima istanza iniettando liquidità nel mercato, una mossa che avrebbe continuato a influenzare la linea di politica della banca centrale inglese. Per scongiurare un crollo completo del sistema bancario, adottò diverse misure straordinarie: iniettò liquidità nel mercato, stampando di fatto denaro per ripristinare la fiducia; iniziò anche a estendere prestiti di emergenza ad altre banche e istituzioni finanziarie, tra cui Barclays, Lloyds e Hoare's Bank. La reazione della popolazione fu un misto di paura, confusione, esaltazione e rabbia. Il Times, ad esempio, ne elogiò le azioni, nonostante fosse chiaro che la decisione di inondare il mercato di liquidità comportasse i suoi rischi. The Economist, invece, la accusò di aver permesso che la crisi si sviluppasse in primo luogo. Il fallimento della BoE nell'intervenire prima nella crisi fu visto come un passo falso catastrofico. Guarda caso, quest'ultima fu la stessa linea di politica seguita dalla stampa americana all'indomani della Grande depressione, giustificazione passata alla storia per aver formato il pensiero di Milton Friedman e il suo supporto a una “scusa accademica credibile” per spingere la Federal Reserve a intervenire attivamente sulla scia delle future crisi.

Quanto a Overend, Gurney & Co. il crollo fu visto come una manifestazione di avidità incontrollata e follia speculativa, un esempio dei pericoli in agguato nel sistema finanziario e, quindi, necessitanti azione da parte dei legislatori. Nel giro di poche settimane il peggio del panico era passato e la BoE era riuscita a stabilizzare i mercati. Stiamo parlando di tempi “semplici”, in cui i bilanci erano ancora lontani dall'essere saturati e, da questo punto di vista, c'era ancora spazio di manovra in patria. Tuttavia l'intervento della Banca d'Inghilterra, sebbene alla fine riuscito, sollevò interrogativi sull'azzardo morale derivante dal salvataggio di istituti finanziari falliti. I critici temevano che ciò avrebbe creato un precedente pericoloso, in cui le aziende avrebbero assunto rischi maggiori sapendo che c'era qualcuno alle loro spalle che sarebbe sempre intervenuto per prevenire la catastrofe. Inutile sottolineare che negli anni successivi alla crisi, si intensificarono le discussioni sulla necessità di una regolamentazione finanziaria più forte. Gli eventi del 1866 rappresentarono un terribile monito e un cambiamento di passo: l'approccio laissez-faire della Gran Bretagna aveva bisogno di “una riforma”.

L'influenza della BoE non si limitava solo alla ricerca di prosperità in tempo di pace. Durante la Prima guerra mondiale la Banca d'Inghilterra fu chiamata a finanziare gli sforzi bellici della nazione: nel 1914, con l'intensificarsi del conflitto, il governo britannico emise bond di guerra per finanziarsi. Per quanto la stampa dichiarò che fosse stata una campagna di raccolta fondi di successo, dietro le quinte la Banca d'Inghilterra aveva sudato le proverbiali sette camicie per trovare abbastanza investitori da coprire i prestiti necessari. Infatti il governo inglese si era rivolto alla sua banca centrale per avere più di £100 milioni in finanziamenti e compensare il deficit pubblico. Nel suo libro, Lords of Finance, John Maynard Keynes predisse che la Prima guerra mondiale non sarebbe durata più di un anno, perché i Paesi coinvolti non potevano permettersi di sostenerla: la tensione economica sarebbe stata troppo grande dato che tutte le parti coinvolte avrebbero rapidamente esaurito le loro risorse finanziarie. Le banche centrali furono l'escamotage per aggirare questa evidenza: esse, in particolar modo quella inglese e americana, dirottarono artificialmente le risorse di capitale e sostennero il pesante indebitamento dei rispettivi Paesi, il che alimentò la guerra molto più a lungo del previsto e preparò il terreno per la crisi economica che ne seguì.

Infatti, subito dopo la Prima guerra mondiale, la Gran Bretagna si trovò alle prese con profonde distorsioni economiche: la guerra aveva creato scompiglio nelle finanze della nazione, lasciandola con un macigno di debito pubblico e un mercato dell'export ridotto. Il governo inglese cercò di ripristinare l'ordine finanziario prebellico tornando al gold standard nel 1925. Winston Churchill, allora Cancelliere dello Scacchiere, sostenne questa mossa come simbolo di stabilità e della duratura leadership globale della Gran Bretagna. Solo che non fece i conti con le precedenti deformazioni economiche. Il gold standard legava il valore della sterlina a una quantità fissa di oro e il governo di Churchill fissò il tasso alla parità prebellica ($4,86 ​​a sterlina); questa sopravvalutazione rese le esportazioni britanniche non competitive, acuendo la disoccupazione e rallentando la ripresa industriale. Keynes criticò questa mossa nel suo saggio, The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill, sostenendo che avrebbe causato stagnazione economica, previsioni che poi si avverarono. La correzione si intensificò, schiacciando le industrie e riducendo la domanda interna, e la situazione non fece che peggiorare durante la Grande Depressione, quando la contrazione economica globale paralizzò il commercio e la finanza. La mancata svalutazione della sterlina in base alla stampa monetaria che richiese la guerra limitò la flessibilità monetaria, impedendo gli aggiustamenti necessari per affrontare la crisi. Gli Stati Uniti, invece, presero il proverbiale toro per le corna e rimisero in sesto la nazione in un solo anno.

L'ascendente della Banca d'Inghilterra, e la sua presa indiretta, sulla Federal Reserve spinsero quest'ultima ad accettare la richiesta della prima di aumentare la propria offerta di denaro per compensare il deflusso mortale di oro dalle sponde inglesi. In questo modo la FED gettò le basi della futura depressione, come scrisse anche Rothbard nel suo libro America's Great Depression. Alla luce di quanto sappiamo adesso, e di come tutte le micce finanziarie conducano a Londra, il filo diretto tra Londra e Washington non è mai stato staccato; sostituito da una facciata di “alleanze”, ma che invece aveva tutte le caratteristiche di un proxy. Essere un impero globale alla luce del sole richiede accountability, mentre invece una gestione dalle ombre permette un free ride nel momento in cui si commettono errori. Perché essere ritenuti responsabili quando si può avere lo stesso risultato e correggere il tiro senza doversi preoccupare anche dell'opinione pubblica? Si risparmiano energie e le si può indirizzare ai propri desideri più urgenti. Alla fine si tratta sempre di azione umana e incentivi. Questo vale anche per gli imperi, visto che sono costituiti da uomini. L'impero inglese ha quindi mutato forma, ma è sempre rimasto in carica... o perlomeno fino al 2022 come spiego nel mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default. Governi fantocci, ma con una facciata appetibile alla popolazione locale, sono sempre stati proxy scelti da Londra per gestire i propri affari all'estero. Come elaborato nella Prima parte di questo saggio, l'influenza esercitata tramite l'aristocrazia del luogo (o i legislatori) e la successiva inondazione di capitali, creano una impalcatura insostenibile dal punto di vista della costruzione di una base di capitale solida e resistente. Ciò sottopone la nazione-obiettivo al ricatto perpetuo della presenza di capitale a basso costo per andare avanti.... almeno fino a quando i tempi non sono maturi per il raccolto. Se state pensando all'USAID, avete capito il concetto. E quale miglior controllo di una nazione se non quello di esportare in essa il proprio modello di business come il sistema bancario centrale?

L'ascendente esercitato dalla BoE sulla FED durante i Ruggenti anni venti è un indizio potente in questa direzione. Anche perché, come abbiamo visto, all'epoca la Banca d'Inghilterra aveva raggiunto uno status eminente in quanto a istituzione rispettata e collegata a livello elitario. Fomentare una crisi per tirarsi fuori, apparentemente, da una colonia controllata direttemente era un escamotage già usato dagli inglesi. Un esempio a tal proposito è l'India. Un alto giudice di Calcutta, P.B. Chakrabarty, scrisse a Lord Clement Atlee (primo ministro britannico al tempo dell'indipendenza dell'India) domandandogli: “Siccome il movimento di Gandhi, Lasciate l'India, era attivo senza alcun successo da decadi e nel 1947 non successe niente di veramente nuovo che obbligasse gli inglesi ad andarsene, perché se ne sono andati?” Atlee citò diverse ragioni e la principale, secondo lui, fu il fatto che gli inglesi non si potevano più fidare dell'esercito e della marina indiane (e gli ammutinamenti, anche durante la guerra furono molti e tenuti nascosti) come risultato dell'attività militare di Netaj, ovvero Chandra Bose. Ciò che teneva l'India sotto il dominio inglese non era la Marina o l'Esercito Inglese, ma quelli Indiani: se questi non erano più affidabili l'unica opzione era quella di abbandonare l'India e cambiare un colonialismo diretto in uno finanziario e indiretto.

Inoltre i soldati indiani impiegati in tutto il mondo dagli inglesi si stavano rifiutando di obbedire agli ufficiali inglesi. Gli inglesi sapevano bene che per mantenere l'India avevano bisogno di un'esercito permanentemente stanziato sul posto, un esercito di dimensioni simili a quello che aveva combattuto nella Seconda guerra mondiale, un esercito che non potevano certamente permettersi, e che avrebbe portato solo ad una rivolta dei soldati inglesi ormai stanchi di combattere mentre a casa le famiglie facevano la fame. Conclusioni da “Non-violenza: storie e miti” del prof. Neumann dell'Universita' dell'Ontario:

Non ho né la posizione morale, né il minimo desiderio di vanificare gli sforzi di chi ha il coraggio di lottare con la non-violenza [...] ma non ha mai funzionato in nessun senso, né in maniera decisiva, in nessuna parte del mondo e non c'è nessun motivo per ritenere che funzionerà mai. Contando solo sulla sua forza, la non-violenza non ha mai ottenuto gli obiettivi politici di quelli che l'hanno utilizzata. Tre sono i principali esempi di successo della non-violenza: il Movimento di indipendenza di Gandhi, il Movimento dei Diritti Civili negli USA e la campagna contro l'apartheid in Sud Africa. Nessuno di questi ha fatto quel che hanno pubblicizzato. La nozione che la gente si può liberare letteralmente lasciando che i loro guardiani li calpestino è fanta-storia.Il fatto è che Gandhi (come lo chiamava Ginna, rifiutandosi di chiamarlo Mahatma) era una manna dal cielo per gli inglesi e lui probabilmente, filo-britannico e razzista com'era, lo sapeva, e gli stava bene così perché perseguiva i suoi scopi, che non erano necessarimente quelli che la propaganda gli attribuisce. Quando in una intervista anni dopo fu chiesto ad Atlee quale importanza avesse avuto Gandhi nella decisione del governo britannico di lasciare l'India, Atlee fece un sorriso sarcastico e scandì: “M-I-N-I-M-A”. Il fattore finale, la goccia che fece traboccare il vaso e che convinse gli inglesi al ritiro furono sicuramente i combattimenti fra musulmani e indù a Calcutta. Di fronte a una situazione che minacciava di scoppiare, passarono la patata bollente a indiani e pakistani. Non che la non violenza non possa avere risultati (è stata utilizzata da almeno duecento anni in Europa), ma è una tattica circoscritta a specifiche circostanze e da usarsi nell'ambito di una strategia più ampia. In India non funzionò nemmeno in quel senso.

Alla luce di ciò è praticamente legittimo pensare che l'apparente stupidità di tornare a un gold standard pre-bellico fosse funzionale a far risplendere la luce della FED e degli Stati Uniti, come nuovo impero nascente, ma in realtà eterodiretto da Londra. Non c'è solo l'episodio legato ai Ruggenti anni venti, ma anche il London Gold Pool degli anni '60, il LIBOR e la coincidenza storica che poco meno di un anno dopo l'entrata sulla scena mondiale della FED scoppiò la Prima guerra mondiale. Prima di quest'ultimo evento il potere economico e la portata globale dell'Impero britannico avevano consolidato lo status della sterlina come valuta di riserva primaria al mondo, simbolo della vasta rete commerciale e dell'influenza finanziaria della Gran Bretagna. Poi, a cavallo delle due guerre mondiali, l'Inghilterra si dà la zappa sui piedi sprofondando volontariamente nei debiti e ritornando al gold standard ignorando il caos economico precedente. Come si può giustificare un azzardo morale talmente sfrenato? A meno che non si abbiano le spalle coperte...

Infatti il declino del predominio della sterlina britannica culminò con l'ascesa del dollaro statunitense come valuta di riserva globale alla Conferenza di Bretton Woods nel 1944. Gli Stati Uniti presero il centro della scena, diventando il fondamento del nuovo sistema finanziario globale. Ciò avrebbe dato vita a un nuovo cappio finanziario che si sarebbe esteso ai mercati globali: l'eurodollaro.

In conclusione, la storia della BoE è la storia della FED, replicata con sfumature diverse ma alla base sono la medesima cosa. Una conquista che avrebbe permesso all'Inghilterra di aumentare la portata delle sue operazioni sacrificando, nel processo, la ricchezza reale di una nazione prospera e ricca di risorse. Come in ogni schema Ponzi che si rispetti, bisogna sempre aumentare la platea di gente da spennare.

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

???? Qui il link alla Prima Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/02/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato.html

???? Qui il link alla Terza Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/03/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato.html

???? Qui il link alla Quarta Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/03/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato_01743587150.html

Thanks, David Martin.

Kash Patel showing up to the FBI building after he was just confirmed.
(by @mad_liberals & me) pic.twitter.com/ZwuARJWcqc

— drefanzor memes (@drefanzor) February 20, 2025

The post Kash Patel Confirmed as FBI Director appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes  Rick Rozoff:

US not to co-sponsor UN resolution condemning Russia — Reuters

Without US backing, the resolution might be less likely to win broad support in the General Assembly, the agency noted

LONDON, February 20. /TASS/. For the first time since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation, the US will not co-sponsor a draft resolution of the UN General Assembly supporting Kiev and condemning Moscow’s actions, Reuters news agency reported citing diplomatic sources.

The US has co-sponsored almost every UN resolution in support of Ukraine and condemning Russia since the start of the special military operation. The agency characterizes the US decision to withdraw support for the upcoming document as “a stark shift by Ukraine’s most powerful Western ally.” This reflects the growing rift between Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and US leader Donald Trump, which has emerged against the background of the latter’s attempts to achieve a quick settlement of the Ukrainian conflict.

The draft resolution condemns Russia’s actions and states its commitment “to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”

“In previous years, the United States has consistently co-sponsored such resolutions in support of a just peace in Ukraine,” one of the sources said.

A source told Reuters that the resolution was being sponsored by more than 50 countries, declining to identify them.

As a rule, a draft resolution can be co-sponsored until it is considered by the General Assembly. The reason for the initiation of the new resolution was the approaching anniversary of the special military operation.

“For now, the situation is they (the US) won’t sign it,” another source said.

“The UN vote, seen as an important bellwether of global support for Ukraine in the face of the Trump administration’s seeming shift towards Russia’s position in the war, could still go ahead without US backing, but might be less likely to win broad support in the General Assembly,” the source went on.

Efforts are ongoing to seek support from other countries instead, including the Global South, the source added.

 

The post US not to co-sponsor UN resolution condemning Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

PJ Media

 

The post What the Hell Is Wrong With CBS News? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Regardless of one’s specific take on virology, vaccines, etc., it’s nice to see the legacy media, public-health agencies, and allopaths lose so much credibility since the pandemic. Better late than never, some people are waking up. Plus:
1) Why do some people still have spike protein in their blood two years after their last mRNA shot?
2) Why has there been a rise in T-cell abnormalities among recipients of the mRNA shots?
Yale medical professors have no clue. What a shock!

The post Alex Berenson on Why There’s No Current Media Scare About the Flu…and the Latest Freaky Effects of the Covid Shots (2.20.25) appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Based” means “true to yourself” and implies a kind of mobilizing integrity, an integrity that leads to action.  The pinions of Trump’s foreign policy were developed over decades of New York real estate, construction, and business competition, as well as a bit of Hollywood, and a lifetime of sleeve-worn patriotism. The influence of a smart, entrepreneurial wife and ex-wife, who grew up under, and later escaped, European totalitarianism, socialism and communism cannot be under-estimated.

It looks like old style realism, a bit of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, where we hear, “…the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Increasingly frantic screams from neoconservatives, left-globalists, and the uni-party cartel about a realistic peace in Ukraine bear this out.

Trump’s major foreign policy actions so far have mainly been a show of US “strength” with an accurate recognition of where weakness resides.  Tariffs in bilateral trade; re-engagement with Russia to end the NATO-Russia war in Ukraine and pull Russia from a Chinese orbit; forcing Netanyahu, pre-inauguration, to agree to (but not necessarily to comply with) a Gaza cease-fire; grandly launching a new Monroe Doctrine; and a possible outlier, giving his public stamp of approval to a longtime Zionist plan for permanent elimination of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.  Other decisions also fit:  Trump’s immediate crackdown on illegal immigration; demands for regional cooperation to end the illegal drug trade; and requesting (again) a troop withdrawal from northwestern Syria that should end US military protection for Conoco’s illegal drilling there.

Combined with a long-promised and surprisingly well-organized swamp-drain project, complete with its own media machine, Trump’s based foreign policy is doubly audacious.

To remove the stain of decades of Ukraine-related double-dealing out of the EU, NATO and Washington, Trump will settle the Ukraine question.  Because he is necessarily working with the Russians, this settling will be largely on Russia’s terms. The Minsk treaties, signature-guaranteed by Germany’s Merkel and France’s Hollande, were not model agreements but tricks to “buy Ukraine time to arm.”  NATO shelves are bare, the EU is rife with political instability, due in part to three years of war they paid for, cheap energy they sacrificed, and 6.3 million Ukrainian refugees living in their countries unlikely to ever return home.  Ukraine itself is politically, economically and militarily devastated, and Trump wants the US investment back.  The weak suffer what they must.

Yet, the weak do have power – the power of panic, the power that comes from having nothing left to lose, the criminal liberation of having no honest options. The losers in the settlement of Ukraine will include a wasted and angry NATO – under heavy pressure from the US to “defend itself” and pursue its highly debatable “mission.”  Will a newfound clarity lead NATO members to reject the hollow NATO construct?  That would require electing a new kind of European leader – the kind the current leadership cannot tolerate, as Vance pointed out last week. Will Scholz ever admit that he supported the US-led project to destroy Nordstream, as he appeared to, when he stood beside Biden as the latter telegraphed the upcoming inter-NATO act of war?  How Europe reacts to the end of the Ukrainian propaganda and weapons gravy train, and the humiliating failure of the former US-led psyop, remains to be seen.  How the shrinking dictatorship in Kiev reacts is likewise unpredictable.  Ending a war through US and Russian strength may not be as simple as imagined. A panicked animal – even if it is small, needs a way to escape what is unbearable to it. Will based realism offer enough “ways out” for the many angry, hissing weasels in Europe and in Washington?

Trump’s realism seeks long-term resolution of US wars abroad.  We see this in Ukraine, and also in the US -funded, -supplied, -assisted and -justified Zionist genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. For Israel, these are long-term strategic land grabs, reliably assisted by every president since LBJ.  Israel works hard with both major parties, and all presidents, assisting them in the design of “their” Israel policy, and politically and reputationally harming any public figure who opposes the Zionist project.  This is old news, and it’s an old war – October 7th 2023 is just one Israeli facilitated marker among many.

Realism requires reality – an honest understanding of not just a situation, but a history, the evolution of events and relationships.  It requires introspection, and a kind of honesty that the American political class has not exercised with regard to Israel in 65 years.  We are now witnessing the mass unease caused by fresh US introspection on Ukraine, and seeing the direct danger of publicly contradicting false US, European and Ukrainian narratives even though the war has only been active since 2014.  We are debating only a dozen years of irrational ethnic warfare, and a relatively recent popular emergence of Ukrainian neo-National Socialism.  We are learning about a narrow segment of Ukrainian political ideologies that call for expulsion and destruction of the people associated with a “state enemy,” and the militarized elimination of their places of living, farming, working, and worship.  We are just beginning to debate if elimination of the culture, religion and language associated with those demonized by the state is moral, proper, and democratic – in Ukraine.

Trump 47 has rejected, and ejected, the neoconservative pro-NATO, pro-Zelensky cadres in DC.  Trump had been interested in what was behind the conflict, in part because his first term and second election were derailed by false charges and a deep state attack that used Ukraine and Russia as the battering ram. Trump’s education on Ukraine and Russia – and about the lying neoconservatives with anti-American agendas – was personal, emotionally charged, and came at a heavy cost.  These were perfect conditions for learning a hard lesson, and Trump learned the lesson.

A similar process has not yet happened with regard to Israel. Trump shocked many of his America First supporters with his claim a few weeks ago that the US would buy and own Gaza, and use other people’s money to create a Gaza Riviera – a place of great beauty and profit, without Palestinians, nor a right of Palestinian return.  At the time he made this announcement, the IDF slaughter and destruction of Palestinian homes and property in the occupied West Bank where 6 million other Palestinians live had been accelerated, even as Trump’s demanded Gaza cease fire was in place.  Trump doubled down on the Gaza evacuation proposal – an idea fed to him by Zionists, including those he respects, and made justifiable by the obscene level of destruction the IDF and the US taxpayer delivered throughout the Gaza strip.  The process of Trump “learning” about Israel from any perspective beyond his rabidly Zionist friends and advisors has not yet begun.

As an investor, Trump may someday be inspired by what Gazans built and rebuilt, again and again, in Gaza, despite the regular IDF lawn mowing, despite the Israeli-prescribed diet for Gazans, and despite strict limits on construction materials and concrete Israel allows into the strip.  As an employer and property owner, Trump may someday be appalled at the Zionist culture of theft, murder and contempt for the Palestinian Israelis who labor in Israel. As a person who genuinely loves people, and values family, Trump may someday realize the greatest strength of Israel is not paranoid and racist Zionism, but in a Palestinian spirit of endless rebuilding, innovation, education, and their remarkable ability to distinguish between the Zionist state and some of their Jewish neighbors who really do want peaceful co-existence, despite the cruel despicable record since 1948.

This reality reflects where real power resides in the region – and it is not in Zionism.  The reason Israel lobbies both parties and US presidents so aggressively is because it must.  US money, political and military support is fundamentally, and humiliatingly, necessary for the continuation of Zionism in Israel.  Israel’s government is weak, and Israelis resent their dependence on the security, top cover, and cash flow facilitated by US presidents – none of whom they respect. Netanyahu has much more in common with Zelensky – a criminally motivated, corrupt, and unpopular leader of a country disturbed and weakened by endless, pointless war – than Trump may currently realize.

I hope and expect Trump will continue to discover reality, and keep the US on a new path of based realism.  Unfortunately, there are many enemies of American success, and American realism.  There are many who financially and politically benefit from war, conflict and the corruption of American ideals at home and abroad.  Those funding and promoting ambitious ethno-states in the false name of American interests are working hard to make sure Trump fails in his pursuit of both knowledge and realism.

The post Trump’s Foreign Policy is Based – But Can It Prevail? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The hatred in the hearts and minds of many on the Left is just astounding. Having spent a lifetime closely following and being involved in the American political scene, I have never seen anything as extreme as the bitter hatred and anger directed toward Donald Trump.

Now, just as love expands so that a parent can love a second and third child as much as the first, apparently political hatred can expand, too.

While the hatred for President Trump has not abated, and in fact has grown because of many of his executive orders, the hate in the hearts of many liberals has expanded to cover Elon Musk, too.

I mentioned in a column a couple of years ago that I am in a men’s book club. We have just finished reading a lengthy but easy-to-read biography of Musk by Walter Isaacson.

I have never read a book that made me feel so unsuccessful. I have felt good about being able to help thousands of people during my career as a teacher, lawyer, judge and congressman, usually in small ways, but still very important to those people.

But everything Musk did (and is doing) was HUGE, and almost everything has seemingly turned to gold. Forbes Magazine estimated his net worth by 2025 as $397 billion and said he is the world’s richest man.

He is the world’s most successful man except in the most important way – his personal life.

He has fathered 12 children with three different women, only one of whom he was married to. He works around the clock, leaving little time with his children, one of which is now a trans-gender woman who has changed her last name because she wants nothing to do with Musk.

He has been divorced three times (twice from one of his wives), and has had numerous short-term relationships. He has a touch of Asperger syndrome – a form of autism – which causes him to have difficulty in social relationships with other people. He has fired many people who have worked for him.

He seems to be a very rich, very brilliant man, and I am sure he has had many moments of great joy. But he seems to be a never-satisfied, very unhappy man.

But in spite of his personal problems, I believe the American taxpayers are very fortunate to have him helping Donald Trump at the top of our federal government.

His success seems to be because he questions every requirement, rule, regulation, and expenditure, and always wants to know if anything can be done in a better, cheaper, faster way. No detail is too small.

I am proud that I can honestly say if everyone had voted the way I did in my 30 years in Congress, we would not have any federal debt, and this nation would be much stronger.

But the Democrat way, aided and abetted by some Republicans, was to vote for any and every kind of spending and then to pay for it through a combination of taxes and tremendous inflation of our currency,

With the unfortunate exception of many billions going to Israel, Trump and Musk are making the first serious effort to bring federal spending down.

Anyone who doesn’t think this has to be done (with our debt now at an incomprehensible $36 trillion) should read this from Eric Metaxas’ best-selling biography, “Bonhoeffer”:

For Germany, 1923 was disastrous.  The German mark, which had begun to slide two years earlier, went into free fall.  In 1921 it dropped to 75 marks to the dollar, the next year to 400; and by early 1923 it plunged to 7000. But this was only the beginning of sorrows.

Germany was beginning to buckle under the pressure of meeting the payments stipulated by the Versailles Treaty. . .The resultant economic turmoil would make the bleak conditions of a few months earlier look like the good old days: by August a dollar was worth one million marks; and in September, August seemed like the good old days. By November 1923 a dollar was worth about four billion German marks.

In the years leading up to this crash, Germany was considered to be the most educated country in the world. Our worst depression occurred 16 years after the Federal Reserve System was created, supposedly to prevent such things happening here.

Too many of our people naively think the German inflation of the 1920s can’t happen here. It can if Trump, Musk and other lose their fight to bring federal spending under control.

This originally appeared on The Knoxville Focus.

The post Hate For Trump Has Now Expanded To Musk appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Workers across the country responded with anger and confusion,” the Associated Press reported last week, in response to the Trump administration’s layoffs of probationary workers. CBS News tells us “federal workers express shock, anger over mass firings,” and The New York Times writes that federal works face “sleeplessness, anger and tears.”

Some workers launched lawsuits against the Trump administration. Others went on legacy media television shows to claim they have been mistreated.

The media interviews, lawsuits, protests, and open letters all hit on a similar theme: that it is wrong and unfair that taxpayer-funded government workers might have to look for work in the marketplace like ordinary people. Regular workers, after all—the type without federal jobs from which, historically, it is virtually impossible to be fired—often have to change jobs whenever there is a restructuring, merger, bankruptcy, or budget cut. This is life outside the comfortable fantasy world of federal employment. Naturally, federal employees don’t like the sound of that at all.

The legacy media has portrayed this all as a conflict between the hard-working, guileless folk of the federal workforce on the one hand, and the insensitive villains of the Trump administration on the other. There is a third party to all of this that is virtually never mentioned by the media, though: the taxpayers who pay for it all.

The Forgotten Third Party: The Taxpayers 

After all, the federal employees’ salaries only exist because money is transferred—by force—from taxpayers to federal employees. If a taxpayer doesn’t want to pay for USAID’s countless leftwing propaganda programs across the globe, then he has no choice. He has to pay up or go to jail for tax evasion.

Thus, any discussion of federal employees that doesn’t mention the taxpayers who pay bureaucrats’ salaries is fundamentally dishonest and incomplete. Donald Trump isn’t paying for these jobs. American fast-food workers, insurance agents, and cell-phone salespeople are paying for it all.

Indeed, in America, there are more than ten million jobs funded by federal taxes, including direct-hire federal employees, contractors, and grantees. These jobs are paid for by about 131 million private-sector workers. That’s one federal worker for every 13 private workers. Given that taxes on income are the primary source of federal revenue, each federal worker owes nearly everything to the 13 workers who pay for it. Federal workers also tend to enjoy salaries well above the national average, which means the people paying the bills are often people with lower salaries and fewer benefits than federal workers.

Federal workers and their defenders have a ready response to this. They insist that all federal jobs are absolutely essential and the taxpayers are getting a bargain for the money they are forced to pay into federal salaries. Do the taxpayers agree? An easy way to find out would be to give the taxpayers a choice to keep the money they pay toward federal salaries. If the taxpayers think they’re getting a great deal, I’m sure they’ll be happy to voluntarily keep paying. For instance, we could ask the mom of 3 who works the drive thru at Burger King if she wants to keep paying for the USAID grants manager who is paid $120,000 to work from home. Naturally, we would helpfully explain to the drive-thru worker that without this USAID worker, there might not be any new transgender operas in Colombia next year. To make things easier, we could even include a checkable box on tax returns to the effect of “yes, tax me to pay for the FBI agents who will investigate me for criticizing the local school board.”

If we think the answer might be “no” to all this, then this illustrates a fundamental problem with forcing private-sector workers to pay all those federal salaries.

Classical Liberal Exploitation Theory

We have a word for this relationship between the federal workers and the taxpayers. The word is “exploitation.” Another term for it all might be “class conflict.” Whatever we call it, the relationship is this: the state with all its coercive power extracts money from one group of people and hands it over to another group of people. In this relationship, the government class exploits the private-sector class. In a larger sense, this describes the relationship overall between the state and the taxpayers who pay for it.

The Marxists were right that class warfare exists, but they were wrong about the nature of the classes. The conflict is not between the capitalists and the workers. The conflict is between the productive taxpayer class which pays for everything, and the parasite class which exploits the productive class.

Indeed, contrary to a myth often spread by conservatives, it was not the Marxists who invented the idea of class conflict or class warfare. It was, rather, the laissez-faire liberals—aka “classical liberals” or “libertarians”—who pioneered the idea. It’s easy to see why. The liberals understood that market production is based on voluntary exchange. In the marketplace, no one is forced to pay for what he does not want. The old liberals identified the market classes as the business owners, the private-sector laborers, and all who were net taxpayers and whose income came by free commerce.

There were other classes, too, though. These were the nonmarket classes who relied on government salaries, government contracts, and government subsidies for income. By the nineteenth century, the liberals already had it mapped out: the market classes were the exploited. The government classes were the parasites.

Or, as historian Ralph Raico put it, this a conflict in which it is “the ‘tax-eating’ versus the ‘tax-paying’ class.”

Nonetheless, the media narrative on this has consistently been that it is the tax-eating class that is the victim here. They are the victims of Trump, or of Elon Musk, or whatever public figure can serve as the nemesis to the presumably selfless “public servants.” The taxpayer, through it all, usually remains invisible.

Fortunately, the same media narrative convinces us that we need not be too concerned about the workers who have been let go. We have been told for years that federal employees are the cream of the crop: exceptionally competent, hard-working, highly educated, dedicated servants of the public interest. If this is the case, then these laid off workers will have no trouble finding new jobs very soon.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post Class Warfare: The Exploitation of Taxpayers by Federal Workers appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: At $1.1 trillion, annualized interest on the US federal debt is now the second-largest budget item—and is on track to become the largest.

Meanwhile, long-term interest rates are climbing, even as the Fed lowers short-term rates.

Can the US government keep kicking the can down the road? Or will Trump have to reset the system?

Doug Casey: Starting in the 1960s, a growing number of people noticed the size of the debt and annual deficits. Even back then—when numbers were trivial compared to current levels—it was said this can only end up one of two ways: Either runaway inflation, where the dollar loses all value, or catastrophic deflation caused by massive defaults in debt.

It occurred to me, in the 1980s, that it could wind up with both happening, either in sequence or simultaneously in different sectors of the economy. While you couldn’t rule out a soft landing, the most likely eventual result would be financial and economic chaos.

Massive money printing and debt accumulation have gone on for something like 80 years, and the system has held together. Why should it end now? Maybe they can wring one more cycle out of the corrupt Keynesian system. That said, I think we have finally reached the actual crisis point. Although this certainly isn’t the first time the inevitable seemed imminent…

What’s genuinely different this time is Trump. For whatever reasons—yes, I know what the party line is—he and Elon are radically reforming the government and may yet change the downward trajectory of America. At least they’re throwing sand on the slippery slope.

I thoroughly approve of his massive firings of employees, disbanding agencies, and cutting the budget by hundreds of billions. The risk is that he might bring on a deflationary collapse. Many of the government grifters and their pals, who are getting rich through the likes of USAID, will have to radically reduce their spending. Many could wind up in bankruptcy, defaulting on their mortgages and other debt. That’s how a deflationary credit collapse could start.

Trump’s very familiar with bankruptcy proceedings. Having bankrupted numerous entities, he sees the dangers of bankruptcy. Will that scare him away from making more radical moves? I don’t think so. He sees a chance to both carve his name in stone and save what’s left of America. Plus, he sees what he’s doing as a path to personally bankrupt some of his enemies and hurt all of them. He has plenty of reason to be righteously vindictive.

He’s going for a full reset of the system. It’s risky because he has no philosophical core, just gut feelings. And no grasp of economics, just business experience (which is different). But something had to be done to keep the US from turning into a socialist cesspool like all the countries in Europe.

Along with massive deregulation, I expect he’ll do something with the monetary system.

The cuts that DOGE is making are spectacular and wonderful. If they can eliminate the deficit, then the government won’t have to print money. But not printing increasing amounts of dollars could easily set off a credit collapse, the deflation alternative.

On the other hand, Trump seems to have lots of spending schemes up his sleeve, which will need massive amounts of money. Like taking over Gaza, buying Greenland, and buying back the Panama Canal, among others. We’re talking many hundreds of billions. The unwinding of old distortions, only to replace them with new distortions and different government interventions.

The big monetary question is, when the system resets, what will gold have to do with it?

My guess is that gold is going to play a major role in the reset.

International Man: What past monetary resets have occurred in US history, and how do they compare to today’s situation?

What does it mean for the US dollar?

Doug Casey: The biggest reset in history occurred in 1933 when Roosevelt confiscated gold from US citizens at $20.50 per ounce before revaluing it to $35. That was a massive criminal theft, and it was done by executive order, not even an act of Congress.

The next reset was in 1964, when Johnson took all the silver out of US dimes, quarters, and half dollars, and fraudulently replacing it with pot metal that looked like silver to the casual observer.

The next big reset was in 1971 when Nixon ceased redeeming gold to foreign governments, much as Roosevelt had denied redeemability to American citizens.

Smaller monetary frauds were committed over the years, such as in 1982, when copper was taken out of the penny. It was replaced with zinc with a copper coating to make it look the same. But even using zinc, which trades for about $1.50 a pound, it costs about 3.7 cents to mint a penny.

Copper trades for about $4.50, which means old copper pennies are now worth about 10 cents in metal. Since it costs about 13 cents to mint a nickel, we can expect that they’ll soon be made of steel, like the Canadian nickel, or eliminated, as pennies soon will be.

The most recent monetary upset was the creation of Bitcoin, which was created as an alternative to the dollar. It’s a step towards obviating the role of government in the money business. I believe it will succeed.

I’d say the acceptance of Bitcoin belongs on a scale with these other events. Why? Because Bitcoin has caused the dollar to be recognized as a fiat currency in the popular jargon. Before Bitcoin, the word “fiat” was viewed as pedantic. Something only gold bugs cared about. Now, most everybody sees the dollar as just paper, a fiat currency.

This is a very good thing. The public is seeing reality.

International Man: The gold market is typically driven by paper trading, with large physical deliveries being rare.

However, someone in the US recently took possession of approximately 30 million ounces of physical gold. For context, the US government claims to hold 261 million ounces of gold—though many question the accuracy of that figure. These recent physical deliveries equal over 11% of the US government’s reported gold reserves.

What do you make of this? Historically, what have large movements of physical gold signaled?

Doug Casey: Large transfers of money usually signal fear. In a stable world with high levels of trust, it’s more convenient to store your gold at a central facility where ownership can be tracked not by necessarily moving the gold but by just changing the ownership of gold that’s in one place.

But when people take delivery of massive amounts of gold, it might signal a bank run. There’s fear that it may no longer be there.

All we know is that this is going on between major players and governments—you might say malefactors of great wealth, to use Teddy Roosevelt’s phrase. The retail public isn’t involved. The proof of that is that the premiums on gold coins are still close to historic lows, although they’re increasing.

There are lots of questions, but it seems to me that this is an overture to a major upset. That’s why people are taking possession of physical gold. They want it in their own possession.

International Man: The US government still values gold at approximately $42 per ounce on its balance sheet—significantly below its market price.

Could it revalue this gold to reflect its actual market value? And if so, what would be the implications?

Doug Casey: It’s always good to recognize the real value of anything.

Politically assigned values are usually phony and create distortions in the marketplace. It never ends well when you pretend lies are true.

I’m confident that the US, and possibly other governments, will soon revalue gold to at least its market price. Or perhaps a much, much higher price that would allow redemption of currencies with specific amounts of gold.

People talk about “backing” the dollar with 10%, 20%, or 40% of its stated value with gold. But that’s ridiculous. Redeemability, one for one, is what counts.

The dollar started out as a receipt for a specific amount of physical gold, 1/20th of an ounce. Is it possible Trump will raise the price of gold to a level where the dollar is again redeemable? I’d say yes. It would be part of the solution to the $37 trillion national debt.

I suspect he’s planning on revaluation of all government assets. The US government has title to many millions of acres of BLM and Forest Service land, which is carried on the books at basically zero. It amounts to about 1/3 of the total US land area, but it’s now dead capital. It should be revalued to what it’s worth. Better yet, it should be distributed to the citizens of the US or at least sold.

I’d add in redundant military bases. There are hundreds that should be closed. And they will be if Trump cuts military spending by 50%, which he has intimated. The US government has lots of assets that should be liquidated to pay off its most pressing debts. A giant garage sale to avoid bankruptcy.

That’s something Trump is very familiar with.

Going back to gold, the key is an audit to determine how much gold the US government actually owns—followed by making the dollar redeemable with a fixed amount of gold. I doubt that will happen. But it could, should, and would if we return to a stable, trust-based world.

International Man: Past monetary resets have generated incredible speculative opportunities.

How do these historical examples compare to the opportunities available today?

Doug Casey: The question is what gold “should” be priced at.

At around $3,000 an ounce, gold is now about where it should be—from a historical point of view—relative to houses, cars, clothes, meals, and so forth.

From that point of view, there’s not much speculative upside in gold. But if the dollar is transformed from a fiat currency into a receipt for gold—which it should be since that’s the only way to stabilize the system for the long term— a massively higher gold price is needed.

I spelled that out in my 1993 book, Crisis Investing for the Rest of the ’90s. I came up with numbers. Depending on which parts of the money supply you wanted to use, gold would have to be many thousands, perhaps $40,000 per ounce.

My podcast partner, Matt Smith, has done a great analysis, which has gone viral, discussing this. He found, whether in US dollar terms, Euros, Chinese Yuan, or other currencies, that the likely price for revalued gold is someplace between $20,000 and $30,000 per ounce.

I suggest everybody listen to that podcast (LINK) for a full explanation of why that’s the case.

So, what should you do?

If you haven’t built a significant holding of gold coins, do it now. Gold stocks are starting to move up after a long bear market, and if gold is revalued, gold stocks will explode upwards.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Coming Monetary Reset and Trump’s Impact on Gold and the Dollar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Q. How many light bulbs does it take to change a philosophy?

A. Depends how you define good lighting.

When something goes by a name that means “the love of wisdom,” finding anything worthwhile in it depends on how you define wisdom. If you get off being mired in redundancy and rhetorical twister philosophy is just the sport. The deconstructionists, post-modernists, Nazis and neo-fascists all swear by Nietzsche; his canon turns out a multi-purpose ideological vehicle for the ride to dystopia. Once you know that, and still think Freddy’s writing amounts to something more than a college boy’s joint addled literary amusement park, any pretense of philanthropy is self delusion.

Now, just what the hell does it mean “to be”? Is it really a question a healthy, goal driven person has all day for? A nice, long swim in the ocean fills that bill better than poring over Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre for years. Nobody on a path toward not being a boor remains stuck on those three long.

20th century philosophers bent over backwards trying to stay hip, but could never contain their sanctimony. If any of them had, it would have ended in spontaneous combustion. Hoffer did his damndest to drive dogmatic doctrine from the temple. The industry wouldn’t hear of it. Academicians keep leading the flock right back to genuflection, services in a foreign tongue and Baal.

If “justice” is what you’re after, it’ll be long delayed when it takes one million words or more to figure out what it is. Up against that, the more efficient task is figuring out what it isn’t. All the ones standing in justice’s way today have been steeped to opacity in the isms of rage. They’re in sects where the congregation leaves the pew mad at the world – and that, Little Adam, passes for enlightenment. Somebody’s are guilty out there. There’s a good chance you’ll be counted among them showing too much particularity about who.

Can someone please invent us a device to measure the prevalence of fanatical philosophy in the various professions? In which is it likely to do most harm?

Sacha Biazzo talks about a philosophy of journalism, How to Cover Stupidity (Including Our Own), on the January 22nd Columbia Journalism Review web page. “Writers in Europe are wrestling with a philosophical concept that lies at the heart of much journalism,” the subhead informs us. In true philosophical style Biazzo takes over 600 words to say what Pope did in 27:

 A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Knowing that you don’t know it all is the safest, surest route to improve understanding. It’s less than completely clear that professional journalism is really the target of Biazzo’s essay. We hear:

“Isaac Asimov once said that “there is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been.” Asimov argued that this ignorance is “nourished by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge.”

Isaac’s quotation has been whipped out on us more than once over recent years. Is the high academy who Asimov or those citing him, were scolding? Was it ever anyone other than the cursed peasant? His beating must go on until morality improves. Defenders of the faith have ruled that hand tool handling and toxic views go hand-in-hand.

 Sheltering the profs, providing them running water, putting a plate on their tables and other survivability services can never redeem the serfdom. Their sins are mortal, vague, voluminous and unforgivable. All the ones pontificating at university while chowing on the best eats and bedding down in plush accommodation must justify themselves. With a multitude to look down upon … they almost feel like they’ve earned it.

Alas, what can be done for the helots? Or, is it to them? That’s the “philosophical” matter before august deep thinkers. If the lowly don’t think rightly, a perpetually moving target, can’t they be dealt with expeditiously? Shall the post-modernists and neo-nazis fight that out? Both isms hate with equal fervor. Whether it’s Jews or Kulak types, sanctimonians need targets for their sights.

Jefferson, with unintentional irony, said: “that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor”. What were the unwashed ever thinking, seeking a bit of say so over fate?  They didn’t read Marx, Marcuse, Wittgenstein or anyone else who counts. And, therefore, must continue stocking the larders of better folk looking after them. It’s absurd to believe those obsessively pushing words around should be bothered with the toil necessary to keep out of the rain, get to and fro or tedious matters like providing the grub. Despising the help, while riding in ease, is part and parcel to filling the role of post- modernista-mensch.

Socrates, who Biazzo alludes to, claimed to know the difference between knowledge and opinion. Without knowledge of how to change the oil, your opinion of a mechanic leaves something to be desired.

Can journalism honestly be compared to professions like medicine, engineering or chemistry? “Write about what you know about” young students are told. Does that mean covering police should be confined to constables or war to professional soldiers? Even the censorship crowd doesn’t believe that. But they would tie both hands behind Joe Six-Pack’s back and take the gloves off Amanda Marcotte. Is she more qualified to opine on Zimmerman or Rittenhouse than a man who has been in a few brawls? No qualification system invented so far can justify barring a layman’s views from mass dissemination. Who, but the philosophizers, dream up such things?

The trouble arises when writers think of themselves as something more than what they are. Journalism is an art, the “roughest of fine arts” someone once said. What happens when art gets ruled by philosophy? The Nazi and Soviet eras furnish a stockpile of examples in all of them. None of the others came out quite as maimed and mauled as journalism under 20th century fanaticisms.

Finding news consumers today less than satisfied with major media’s products requires no effort. Go to the java joint, watering hole or community event and one is likely next to you in the bluest of cities. What Columbia teaches at its world renowned journalism school isn’t helping. It’s an ecole with no few imitators. There is considerable doubt in the wider world that their lessons are leading truthward. Is “philosophy” the question? It’s hard to rule out. Where else do predilections overrule sensory perception? The trench-coated, gin-milled journeymen of the older school did a far more exacting job of making copy match with what functioning human faculties take in.

If it’s a lack vital knowledge that keeps a redneck from voting “right,” or for “what is in his interest,” why is so little journalistic attention devoted to those hoarding that commodity? The world teems with people deprived of information they’d gladly have. Who are the proper arbiters of where the lowly should be looking? There is no shortage of homilists preaching that an epidemic of ignorance is responsible for the symptom Donald Trump. Anti-populist parsons never delve deep into what keeps American hardhats out-of-the-know.

What does it mean when government officials complain of under-informed masses while concealing information the public paid to compile by pallet-loads-per-hour? This is how the FDA described the necessity of taking over 50 years to reveal Covid vaccine data:

Reviewing and redacting records for exempt information is a time-consuming process that often requires government information specialists to review each page line-by-line. When a party requests a large amount of records, like Plaintiff did here, courts typically set a schedule whereby the processing and production of the non-exempt portions of records is made on a rolling basis.

[…]

FDA has assessed that there are more than 329,000 pages potentially responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. […] FDA proposes to work through the list of documents that Plaintiff requested FDA prioritize for production in order of priority and process and release the non-exempt portions of those records to Plaintiff on a rolling basis. FDA proposes to process and produce the non-exempt portions of responsive records at a rate of 500 pages per month. This rate is consistent with processing schedules entered by courts across the country in FOIA cases.

How is it that this data becomes “exempt” in the first place? Rand Paul has been on that for years now. One specific request from HHS was for two documents of over 500 pages. They were both 100% redacted. Local governments are up to the same stunts in the name of “national security.”

Trying to squeeze Feds, particularly the FBI, for information is as productive as milking a chicken – barring what meshes with their perpetual PR campaign. They cannot, we are told, be expected to comment on “ongoing investigations,” which predictably go on as long as convenient. They are indifferent to how urgent the public’s or the legislature’s inquiries may be. The press seems to be as well. Feds have been clamming up like mobsters for decades. Try doing a Nexus/Lexus search of the news coverage. The Hoover Building will not be rushed. Eventually, the brass there knows, pesky nosy-parkers will dry up and blow away. Meanwhile, any development making the Bureau look good – no matter how sensitive – gets ink at warp speed.

Those in dubious battle against dreaded mis and dis information purport to spend most of their efforts covering government. Going by what gets aired or printed they find it synonymous with covering for government. How often does the ruling obsession with secrecy get op-eds or front pages? If democracy is in new and dire peril – as we are hourly informed – how can elections matter if bureaucracies in perpetual motion are opaque? When so much of what goes on in the gray soulless buildings — we all supposedly own — remains behind the scenes, how is it possible to know if you’re being ripped-off, manipulated, dosed or led fatally astray?

Time magazine has a Media Bias/Fact Check reliability rating of “high.” That’s 5th on a 7 point scale with lowest being “Very Low” and highest “Factual Reporting.” Whether or not that rating site is federally funded is worth knowing. In any case, the following was published by Time St. Patrick’s Day of 2014:

 According to the Associated Press analysis, which covers 99 federal agencies over six years, the Obama administration censored more documents and delayed or denied access to more government files than ever before. In 2013, the administration cited national security concerns a record 8,496 times as an excuse for withholding information from the public. That’s a 57% increase over the year before and more than double the number in Obama’s first year in office.

Sober readers that day may have remembered this was less than one year after Edward Snowden went on the lam. As has been widely reported, 44 waged an historic battle on whisteblowers. That fact is less an indictment of Obama than an indicator of historic trend. The government doesn’t trust you to know and opens a file on anyone openly untrusting of them. Hence, these details should never be held as a defense for regime 43 that founded The Department of Homeland Security. That federal monstrosity emerged as the most redundantly parasitic, hyper-secret government paranoia cult yet known. They tacitly tell us “don’t ask” more frequently than the Rom-Com genre says it aloud.

As far as JFK goes, the kooks have it backwards. If it ever all comes out we’ll find that if the CIA and FBI had been in on it, John Kennedy might be going on 107 right now.

If democracy truly dies in darkness, what arena of common interest gets the least lumens? There is no valid philosophy of journalism. The only justifiable role of a reporter is to expose physical reality, however grisly, to consumers. Philosophical approaches to that task put supposed informers up to finding stories that match with tenets. That’s what keeps them printing the legend of the evil peon who will re-legalize slavery, keep the wife barefoot and pregnant, construct genocidal internment camps and put monarchs back on thrones.

What isn’t legendary is the philosophical demand to decry mass ignorance. It’s the noise made by those whose meal tickets require keeping the audience under-informed and distracted.

The post A Critique of Pure Cant appeared first on LewRockwell.

What is “good” Mass music? As a parish music director, I have often pondered this question. The Church gives clear instructions concerning the implementation of music within the Mass. For instance, the Church stipulates that the most important thing to be sung is the dialogue between the priest and the people: the Order of the Mass.

The next important thing is the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, etc.). The next thing sung should be the Propers (Introit, Responsorial Psalm [Gradual], Gospel Acclamation verse, Offertory antiphon, and Communion antiphon). The liturgical documents give provision for some of these proper antiphons to be replaced by “another suitable hymn.”

So, what makes for a “suitable hymn”? How should we gauge “good” and “bad” hymns? I would suggest using a very simple litmus test by asking this question: “Whom are we singing to?”

If the Mass is the highest form of worship to the One Almighty God and Lord of the Universe, shouldn’t our singing be directed especially toward Him? In recent decades, many published songs for Mass have been written with an orientation of me, myself, and I. The worship is not a vertical gaze toward Heaven. Rather, the orientation is a horizontal glance around the room.

By way of example: When singing the song, “Here I Am, Lord” by Dan Schutte, adorers in the pews sing with self-possessive language twenty-nine times, and they sing directly to God merely six times.

As another example, when singing a song like “Be Not Afraid” by Robert Dufford, worshippers are completely oriented toward themselves (twenty-four instances), never once addressing God directly. God is indeed in the song, but His lines have been assigned to us! “You shall cross the barren desert…’’ (God’s line); “Be not afraid. I go before you always.” (God’s line); “know that I am with you through it all” (God’s line).

This concept of speaking and singing in the place of God creates a peculiar worship orientation that is far too common in our modern Catholic music repertoire: We are taking God’s lines, and we are delivering them to ourselves. You may as well place a giant mirror on the altar.

As I considered this question of hymn orientation, I thought it would be interesting to dig a little deeper into the verbiage of our Catholic music within the United States. How often do we sing to ourselves and how often do we sing to God? The following data has been categorized by songs (non-hymnody) and hymns (strophic, stanza-based).

Here are the top ten songs (non-hymnody) from January 1 to June 30, 2024, in U.S. Catholic parishes, as reported by the royalty-reporting company OneLicense.net. Songs are listed by the instances of orientation: (1) “Me/myself/I” language, (2) “God/Lord” language:

I have no doubt that these songs were composed with all sincerity of heart and mind. For this discussion, focusing on the topic of Mass orientation, it is simply worth noting that the aforementioned songs have worshippers singing about themselves more than twice as often as they sing about God!

Read the Whole Article

The post It’s Time We Stop Singing About Ourselves at Mass appeared first on LewRockwell.

This is my interview by Larry Sparano of a few days ago prior to my learning, as I posted yesterday, that the temporary injunctions that judges are issuing against Trump and Musk’s activities in rooting out corruption from the federal budget are only good for a few days and are not effective except in the sense of giving the corrupt elements in the federal departments and agencies a few days to hide, erase, destroy, and “lose” evidence before Musk can get his hands on it.

To be effective in blocking Trump, the hearing on the temporary injunction must succeed in advancing to a preliminary injunction, which is a rare event.  If a temporary injunction becomes a preliminary injunction, that is when it enters the appeal process and becomes subject to the long delay of the judicial process.  The hearings on the temporary injunctions against Trump and Musk are resulting in the dismissal of the injunctions and are not carrying forward to preliminary injunctions.  

At the time of the interview it did not occur to me that the judges’ injunctions were short-lived temporary measures. The whore media were presenting the injunctions as if they were defeats for Trump.  Almost anyone can request one and it seems judges almost always have to grant them. See this.

What this means is that the concern I state in the interview  about the judiciary’s ability to block Trump is overstated. I think overall the interview is a good stab at this time at a picture of the fight ahead.

Skeptics  perhaps endeavoring to demoralize Trump supporters say it is all just an act.  To see how unlikely this suggestion is, consider that the American Establishment has spent 8 years trying to destroy Trump. They tried to destroy him politically. They twice impeached him. They tried to imprison him. They tried to steal his property. They tried to assassinate him physically both with gun shots and with 8 years of heavy stress that would have killed most people of his age.  Would Trump be inviting more such stress if he were not serious?  Would he have appointed the people he did if he were not serious?

Trump has a beautiful wife and plenty of money. He doesn’t need the stress of the task he has undertaken. He is literally in a fight to the death for our country and for us.  It is extraordinary that there can be Democrats and leftwing freaks who believe that DEI is more important than equality under law, that multicultural nirvana can exist when blacks are taught to hate whites, who are happy when perversity is elevated above normality, and who believe a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel is preferable to Western Civilization.

Trump is trying to save our country for us. The people who oppose him are traitors and our deadly enemies. The Democrats and the leftwing are standing against America.  As Trump and Vance have said, America’s real enemies are at home, not in Russia, China, and Iran.  Trump does not want war.  War would put his domestic agenda on the back burner.  War would produce demands for unity, which means stopping the attack on the domestic enemy.  War is a way of defeating Trump’s agenda.

We must keep our eyes open.  A false flag attack that traps Trump into war is a real possibility.

The post The Democrats Are Standing Against America appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his seminal speech at the recently concluded Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance said the following:

“[T]he threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values: values shared with the United States of America.”

Vance’s words convey a paradigm-changing truth that few have yet grasped.

The truth is this: As far as Europe is concerned, the real enemy of the American people is not Russia. The real enemy is the EU, specifically its ruling elite in Brussels.

In other words, it is the EU globalist regime – rather than Russia – that poses a genuine threat to ordinary Americans. Why?

Because it is this ruling elite that uses the power of the law and the state to trample on the well-being, freedom, and rights of the common man.

It is the EU regime in Brussels that is working frenetically to suppress the nascent populist movements not only within the EU but also worldwide. It does so by collaborating with the cabal of globalist leaders in nations across the globe such as, for example, Justin Trudeau in Canada, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Keir Starmer in the United Kingdom, and Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine.

The EU ruling regime is made of the same cloth as the recently defeated Biden-Harris regime in the US. They share the same goals and objectives of control, power, and enrichment of themselves and their associates.

They also abhor the same things. Above all, they oppose the Democratic process because they do not want to be limited by the will of the people.

They hate popular will and populism. This is why the globalist ruling elitists in the EU, US, and other places closely collaborate in censorship, weaponization of the law, and election rigging. It is part of their collaborative effort to neutralize the Democratic process so that they can rule unrestrained.

To add insult to injury, they shamelessly claim that their dark acts are in “defense of democracy.”

In the EU they use the Digital Services Act to censor and silence people on the Internet. In December of last year, they canceled elections in Romania because the populist leader was on the verge of a big victory. And they threatened to do something similar in Germany if the rising AfD – Germany’s MAGA cousins – should win.

It is the globalist elites in Washington and Brussels that pose a mortal danger to democracy because they use totalitarian methods – such as censorship, lawfare, and election machinations – to subvert the democratic process itself.

“Defending Democracy”

Russia, on the other hand, poses no threat to the American people. Its actions in Ukraine were provoked by the West. It was in response to the expansionist push of NATO toward the Russian borders. This push was largely driven by the American foreign policy elite backed by America’s corporate interests who hope to topple the less-than-cooperative Putin so that they can plunder Russia’s vast natural wealth.

Contrary to what we have been told, Putin never intended to take the whole of Ukraine much less Europe. His invasion was a “special operation” launched with one hundred ninety thousand troops. To give a sense of perspective, Israel gathered three hundred thousand troops before it attacked the Gaza Strip, whose territory is less than one percent that of Ukraine.

To take and occupy a large country like Ukraine would require at least two million troops. The Kremlin never intended or wanted to do this. What they wanted primarily was for Ukraine not to become part of NATO.

The provoked inevitability of this conflict was predicted by Professor John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his far-sighted lecture at the University of Chicago. It was in this talk that Mearsheimer uttered the prophetic sentence:

“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

Mearsheimer’s now famous talk has garnered over 30 million views on YouTube alone. You can watch his brilliant exposition here. If you have not seen it, it would be well worth your time.

In Ukraine, Putin is resisting the same globalist forces that are trying to stamp out the populist movements in the US and worldwide. In Ukraine, he is holding off the censorious and rapacious Western elite intent on plundering this earth for their power and enrichment.

Ukraine has never been part of NATO, and the American people have been just fine. The notion that it is somehow in our interest that Ukraine enters NATO is a big lie spread by the transatlantic globalists.

Our proxy war against Russia, on the other hand, represents an existential danger to the well-being of the American people because it can potentially spark a nuclear exchange with a country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Such a conflict would almost certainly result in the annihilation of both sides.

The unhinged Biden-Harris regime was recklessly playing with nuclear fire.

Donald Trump seems to understand the danger of this, which is why he is trying to shut down this conflict as quickly as possible.

In addition, Donald Trump has recently floated the idea of getting together with Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping and negotiating a fifty percent reduction in each country’s military budget.

This is truly a beautiful, wonderful idea.

May peace prevail, and may God help Donald Trump to succeed in this most noble of efforts.

The post The Real Enemy of the American people Is Not Russia, but the EU Regime in Brussels appeared first on LewRockwell.

A good and typical example of how the U.S. empire does it is this ‘news’-report on February 19th from Politico damning the end of the 1945-2025 Cold War by the U.S. Government to conquer Russia, and trying to extend the latest phase of that War (the Ukraine-war phase), which the U.S. Government started in 2014. Politico headlined about it as-if the aggression was by Russia against America, instead of being aggression by the U.S. against Russia (which it is): “Trump’s America is Putin’s ally now: Europe and Ukraine are learning how little the U.S. cares, as the new president aligns himself with their greatest enemy.” How is Russia an enemy of Europe? Russia is Europe’s largest and most-populous nation, and ever since Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991, it has presented zero threat to any European nation until the U.S. took over Ukraine in 2014 and turned it rabidly against Russia.

Another good example of how the U.S. empire is lying — and a more sophisticated one — is a February 17th U.S. Associated Press (AP) explanatory ‘news’-report headlined “Germany’s economy is in the dumps. Here are 5 reasons why”. It opened:

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Germany hasn’t seen significant economic growth in five years. It’s a stunning turnaround for Europe’s biggest economy, which for much of this century had expanded exports and dominated world trade in engineered products like industrial machinery and luxury cars.

So what happened?

Here are five reasons for Germany’s ongoing economic slump:

[#1] Energy shock from Russia

Moscow’s decision to cut off natural gas supplies to Germany in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dealt a severe blow. For years, Germany’s business model was based on cheap energy fueling production of industrial goods for export.

But this WASN’T an “Energy shock from Russia”; as I had documented back on 28 September 2022 under the heading “How America Is Crushing Europe”:

America creates, imposes, and enforces the sanctions against Russia, which are forcing up energy-prices in Europe, and are thereby driving Europe’s corporations to move to America, where taxes, safety-and-environmental regulations, and the rights of labor, are far lower, and so profits will be far higher for the investors.

Furthermore, America can supply its own energy.

Therefore, supply-chains are less dicey in the U.S. than in Europe. There is less and less reason now for a firm to be doing anything in Europe except selling to Europeans, who are becoming increasingly desperate to get whatever they can afford to buy, now that Russia, which had been providing the lowest-cost energy and other commodities, is being strangled out of European markets, by the sanctions. Money can move even when its owner can’t.

The European public will now be left farther and farther behind as Europe’s wealth flees — mainly to America (whose Government had created this capital-flight of Europe’s wealth).

Europe’s leaders have cooperated with America’s leaders, to cause this European decline (by joining, instead of rejecting, America’s sanctions against Russia), but Germany’s companies can also enjoy significant benefits from relocating or expanding in America. Germany’s business daily newspaper, Handlelsblatt, reported, on September 25th, “More and more German companies are expanding their locations in North America: Washington attracts German companies with cheap energy and low taxes. This applies above all to the southern states. Berlin is alarmed – and wants to take countermeasures.”

(Original: “Immer mehr deutsche Unternehmen bauen ihre Standorte in Nordamerika aus: Washington lockt deutsche Firmen mit billiger Energie und niedrigen Steuern. Das gilt vor allem für die Südstaaten. Berlin ist alarmiert – und will gegensteuern.”)

It says that:

“Numerous German companies are planning to set up or expand their U.S. locations. … U.S. states such as Virginia, Georgia, and Oklahoma, show increasing interest” in offering special inducements for these firms to relocate, or to at least expand, their production in the U.S. For example, Pat Wilson, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Economic Development, tells German companies that,

“Our energy costs are low, and the networks are stable. … Companies coming to Georgia [from Germany] are reducing their carbon footprint.” …

This report reported described the initial indications that America’s anti-Russian sanctions and blowing up of the Nord Stream energy pipelines from Russia were forcing German firms to relocate their manufacturing to America — and that Biden had instituted special inducements for them to relocate here.

Then on 24 June 2023, I headlined “Now the Pay-off Comes from Blowing Up the Nord Stream Pipeline” and reported that the massive 20-year commitment of Germany to buy LNG (liquefied natural gas) compressed, canned and cross-Atlantic shipped, from the U.S. to Germany, to replace Russia’s prior super-cheap pipelined-in natural gas to Germany, will doom the German economy.

Then, on 6 January 2025, I headlined “The Hidden Lies Behind America’s Destruction of Europe”, and opened:

As the following will document, the European masses are victims of a professionally run operation to deceive and thus control them, which makes a mockery of democracy. It’s financed by U.S.-and-allied billionaires, who profit immensely by doing this, while destroying their own country. Like all empires throughout history, it entails cooperation between the super-rich (the aristocracy) in the imperial country (here the U.S.) and in their victim-countries (their colonies — euphemistically called ‘allies’ in order further to fool the masses to support their exploiters). Although this documentation pertains only to the U.S. empire today, it also exemplifies what has been the normal human reality for the past thousands of years.

And it closed with:

I already had headlined on January 1st “UK, Germany, Italy, France, Japan — Likeliest for Economic Crash This Year” and documented that Germany was second only to UK in paying the most exorbitantly high prices for gas — the fuel that’s used the most by manufacturers — and that therefore Germany was now second only to UK in its likelihood of having an economic crash soon. In other words: U.S.-and-allied billionaires are especially bleeding those two nations’ publics by means of fooling them to endorse or at least tolerate this racket that the U.S. Government has been running in Ukraine ever since the U.S. Government grabbed Ukraine in February 2014.

As regards a solution to this problem, I addressed that in my 16 March 2023 “The Transformative Present Moment in History”.

So: the actual source of Germany’s plunging economy isn’t an “Energy shock from Russia”; it is an energy-shock from Germany’s being the biggest colony of the U.S. regime — the U.S. empire — which has 917 foreign military bases (it formerly was 900 foreign military bases, in addition to the 779 inside the U.S.), of which number Germany has the most, 112 (it used-to be 228; so, this number has come way down), followed by Japan, with 97 (it formerly was 79; the plan now is to conquer China, which is why some of those closed bases in Germany are going to Japan). All of the propaganda by it against Russia has been lies. (Now, the lies will be mainly against China.)

Furthermore, since there are 300 leading ‘news’-people on my distribution-list and each of the mainstream media U.S.-and-‘allied’ (colonial) ‘news’-organizations is on that list, they all have known this fact though they persistently say that Germany’s decline is due mainly to an energy-shock “from Russia.” They lie because this is what their owners (who were behind their regime’s having grabbed control over Ukraine in 2014) require them to do if those ‘news’ people are to keep their jobs.

This is modern imperialistic racist fascism; the modernized version of nazism. The ‘news’-media are an essential part of it, because the ‘democratic’ version requires a deeply deceived public, in order to control the voters. Unlike Hitler’s regime (which made no pretense to democracy), Trumanite America does. And, so, it does an even better (and far more sophisticated) job of deceiving its masses than Hitler’s did.

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.

The post How to Identify When the U.S. Empire Is Lying appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a recent CNN television appearance, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett made this statement: “You know what? There was an article that just came out that said that actually the most educated demographic in this country right now is black women.” The article to which she alluded appears to be this eponymous ThoughtCo piece by Nikki Katz, “Black Women Are the Most Educated Demographic in America.” That article cites a 2014 HBCU Buzz article, “Black Women are Ranked the Most Educated Group by Race & Gender,” which provides a link to a BlackandMarriedWithKids.com video that throws some college enrollment statistics up on the screen. Not surprisingly, the comments section of the video is turned off, and the link in the description box to the source of the stats returns a 404: Page Not Found error message.

In my search to find relevant information, I came across this “degrees conferred by race/ethnicity and sex” table published by the National Center for Education Statistics with data from 2021-22; degrees conferred is probably a better statistic to work with than college enrollment because enrollment figures can be affected by dropout rate. Now if all groups earn a particular degree at the same rate, the percentage of each group earning that degree would correspond to the percentage each group makes up of the general population. The methodology employed here will be to see whether a particular group’s percentage of a particular degree earned approaches, equals, or exceeds the percentage that group makes up of the general population. Population percentage estimates for the major groups for this time frame are approximately 58.4 for non-Hispanic whites, 18.7 for Hispanics, 13.6 for blacks, and 7.1 for Asians.

Here are the percentage breakdowns for the various degrees: Associate: Black females are right on the money at 13.6, but they are surpassed by Hispanic males at 25.5, Hispanic females at 27.4, and Asian males at 7.4. Bachelor’s: Black females are at 11.5, surpassed by Asian males at 9.7, Asian females at 8.3, Hispanic females at 17.9, and white males at 61.0. Master’s: Black females are at 14.0, surpassed by Asian males at 9.5, Asian females at 7.4, white males at 62.9, and white females at 60.9. Doctoral: Black females are at 8.0, surpassed by Asian males at 12.9, Asian females at 12.5, white males at 65.2, and white females at 61.6.

Although black females do better than black males in every degree category, there is not a single degree category in which black females do better than every other group in that same category. Based on that fact, black females simply cannot be the most educated demographic in the country.

The post Edjumacating Jasmine Crockett appeared first on LewRockwell.

I never thought I’d witness what I’m seeing right now. The government appears to be literally being audited, before the eyes of the public. We are learning astounding things about the way our tax dollars are being wasted, and used to line the pockets of the usual suspects, in what amounts to a giant money laundering scheme.

Many of my friends in the alternative media are not merely skeptical of what is happening, but downright hostile to it. They are claiming that all the DOGE disclosures are “fake news.” That’s been debunked! Maybe by the same “fact checkers” that apparently were paid by our tax dollars through USAID. Where’s the proof? As I’ve said, DOGE is exactly the kind of thing we would have expected from a President Ron Paul. The alt media shies away from attacking Ron Paul. He may be the only high profile public figure that the black pilled forces don’t think is compromised. And Ron Paul has been closely advising Elon Musk and DOGE. I haven’t heard that he’s expressed any concerns about the way DOGE is going about exposing the way our tax dollars are being spent. Remember, this is Dr. No. A fierce defender of the Constitution. Maybe he’s in on it, too. After all, who isn’t?

I know Elon Musk is a bizarre character. Warp speed weird. And he insists on flashing that freemasonic triangle with his hands, even when he’s saying some very good things. Perhaps we’ve found a Satanist with a conscience? And now he’s trotting out the idea of a $5,000 refund to all taxpayers, from all the DOGE savings. Naturally, the black pillers are outraged at this. How dare this corrupt government attempt to give me back a tiny portion of all the money they’ve confiscated for nefarious purposes? I don’t want it! I can’t be bought off! Well, I will definitely take it, if they actually send it. I didn’t need DOGE to expose all this fraud for me to realize that all the taxes withheld from my paychecks for decades went towards nothing good. Nothing that benefited me or my family. It wasn’t used to fix our roads, bridges, and power grids. It wasn’t used to end poverty, or ensure a real education for our children.

What I’ve noticed is how so many people, including many good, “awake” thinkers, are instinctively opposed to any actual reforms. That’s too good to be true! Like the good cuckservatives have long advised us, there is no such thing as a free lunch. What’s the catch? Sure, they’re going to show you some of the way our taxes are being frittered away. But that’s so they can inject us with mRNA! And introduce the digital currency system. Why else did Donald Trump declare that he wanted to eliminate the penny? That’s the first step to a cashless society. Well, I’ve been down these rabbit holes for decades. At one time, I felt like the only truly “awake” person in America. And we have been warned about the imminent cashless society since the 1980s. Just like we’ve been on the verge of actual world government since at least that long. By conquest or consent, as the international banker once told Congress.

Of course, you’d expect those who have been exposed as profiting from this illicit taxpayer largesse to be angry about the disclosures. Naturally, Ben Stiller is going to deny being paid $4 million to slobber all over penis piano playing “former” actor Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And it was predictable that he’d revive the Russiagate script by claiming it was “Russian disinformation.” Okay, so there was a mistake about condoms being sent to Gaza. Musk admitted that was an error. But USAID apparently did send condoms to other far flung places, which aren’t being bombarded daily by Zionist weapons. I don’t know why taxpayers are sending condoms anywhere. We’ve never sent them to the inner cities, or trailer parks, to my knowledge. And certainly not Appalachia, which is a giant White eyesore, and doesn’t exist in the minds of most Americans. Hey, lots of incels need sex itself. Why doesn’t USAID divert some funds for prostitutes to service the incels?

Once there started being a fairly substantial conspiracy crowd, I was told that every presidential election was going to be cancelled. Martial law will be declared! This may be the last election we ever have! Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump, aren’t going to leave office. They’ll become like emperors. And what about those FEMA camps? Rex 84? I can’t count all the times I’ve heard that various presidents were going to be rounding up dissidents and sending them to the camps. Well, they did build those FEMA camps for a reason, and Senator Daniel Inouye did shut down discussion of Rex 84 on the floor of the U.S. Senate. As Jesse Ventura pointed out back when he was doing his Conspiracy show, before he learned to love the vaccines and “Woke” Democrats, they have playgrounds, with swing sets, in those camps. They must be expecting to house some children there.

We first heard about “extremists” preparing for something big; the economy collapsing, food and water shortages, martial law, among other things, decades ago. They were called survivalists at first, and later morphed into preppers. As I type this in my basement office, I am surrounded by hundreds of bottles of water. A few years back, I was convinced by the doomsters that hold great sway in the alternative media that water would soon be unavailable. I also stocked up on canned food. Lots of soup. A generation, maybe two generations, of preppers have passed away, presumably without ever getting to eat all that emergency food. To paraphrase the poet Tennyson, man never is, but always to be doomed. The future never looks bright in the conspiracy world. Now, there’s good reason for that, and it certainly doesn’t look bright to me, either. But we shouldn’t be walking around with doom boners, either.

How many manic frightening proclamations has Alex Jones alone made? Before he became a disciple of Trump, he was constantly warning us about what the globalists were about to do. He predicted World War 3 as routinely as our vaunted meteorologists gleefully forecast extreme weather events. The faces on the Weather Channel are giddy, even orgasmic, when describing a huge blizzard or Category 5 hurricane. And now that they’ve succeeded so admirably with “COVID,” the Greatest Psyop in the History of the World, predictions about other deadly viruses, variants, and plagues are persistently on the tips of those million dollar “journalist” tongues. You know, like the 6,200 that were paid by USAID to lie for the state. And the commercials! Ask your doctor! Tell your doctor! Get drugged before the next Big Event. Doom, despair, and agony, to quote Hee Haw, are right around the corner.

Ever since I was a child, I feared an asteroid hitting earth. They would plant little stories about the possibility of some asteroid striking, usually in the back section of the newspaper. But I was always on the lookout for them. And they’re still at it. You can find regular reports about NASA tracking some potential threat in space, which could come perilously close to our planet in 2042 or something. NASA’s track record certainly isn’t reliable, so I don’t know why anyone would believe them at this point. And even before NASA, astronomers were as consistently inaccurate as most mainstream scientists still are. The great iconoclast Charles Fort devoted an entire book to exposing their dire predictions, and laughable explanations, called New Lands. Having an asteroid hanging over your head provides some classic fear porn. And that’s what our leaders, and our misguided alt media, continue to engage in.

Read the Whole Article

The post Fear Itself: The Sky Is Always Falling appeared first on LewRockwell.

DUBLIN, February 1, 2025 — “While Irish restaurants are closing down on a daily basis, a new Somalian restaurant has opened in Dublin. It is an extremely uncomfortable feeling to witness your people, culture and history disappear before your eyes.” –Mick O’Keeffe ( @Mick_O_Keeffe on –Twitter)

Reflect. Has Ireland become a safer place after importing vast numbers of Mohammedans from such far-flung outposts as Pakistan and continental Africa?

These newcomers adhere to a culture irreconcilable with fundamental tenets of the Emerald Isle’s native Catholicism and, likewise, have no fealty to Western Civilization.

Can such populations co-exist?

Ample amounts of mental gymnastics must be employed to accept such a claim.

Consider. Either way, Ireland is fast becoming non-Irish.

Now, imagine a government forcing unwanted people from alien lands upon its citizens. Said government also requires the twin sacrifices of blood and treasure to keep these strangers both in place and comfortable.

It sounds crazy, but it’s the age-old story of America.

In response to unrest within the Colonies after the French and Indian Wars and, later, the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed several laws, eventually known as the Quartering Acts, which required colonial authorities—rather than Parliament—to provide food and shelter for British Army personnel in America.

Colonists would provide, at their own cost, room and board for British regulars posted in their area. Parliament, in turn, saved an enormous amount of money. But at what cost?

A brief history: Each Quartering Act was an annual renewal of the Mutiny Acts. In 1689, the first Mutiny Act bolstered William III’s claim to the English crown, for in 1688, the Dutchman overthrew King James II in the “bloodless revolution.”

Interestingly, the foreign king was both James’s nephew and son-in-law, as he was married to the king’s daughter, the future Mary II.

Post-coup, James went into exile in France. Servicemen remaining loyal to James then became subject to Mutiny Act 1688, “An Act for punishing Officers or Soldiers who shall Mutiny or Desert Their Majestyes Service.”

Those accused of such crimes could be tried by court-martial in peacetime England. The punishment, if convicted: death.

Fallout from James II’s deposition continues to this day. In Northern Ireland, during “marching season,” folks regularly parade in honor of a Dutch king who effectively stole the British crown and save July 12 to honor William’s ultimate victory in the Battle of the Boyne.

Stateside, in Virginia, the second-oldest colonial college, now a university owned by the commonwealth called the College of William & Mary, was named in honor of the usurper king and queen, the selfsame couple who issued the college’s royal charter in 1693.

In the 18th century, as the Mutiny Acts were renewed and amended each year—and as the British Empire grew—the burden for funding British regulars on colonial soil increasingly fell to the colonies themselves.

Long story short, this became a major grievance of the colonists, the thirteenth grievance of twenty-seven in total. The Declaration of Independence specifically notes a flaw in the rule of a later king, George III:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

Longer story shorter, the colonists waged war and eventually the Thirteen Colonies each became free and independent states.

The ultimate cost of the Quartering Acts to the British?

The Empire.

Most of continental North America ultimately divested into the hands of former British colonists, rather than to Parliament or the Army.

After independence, those states came together, in 1787, to solidify their bonds and wrote a constitution. On March 4, 1789, the American Constitution became the effective law of the land.

Later that year, Congress proposed a Constitutional amendment, which stated:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Adopted on March 1, 1792, this law became the Third Amendment and has remained uncontroversial. Unlike most of the rest of the Constitution, it has never been the primary basis of any Supreme Court decision.

Yet today, the general government of the United States and the governments of most, if not all, of the constituent states allow and encourage large swaths of humanity from other nations—though perhaps technically not soldiers—to quarter among its people.

Though Americans are constitutionally forbidden from having to personally provide “three hots and a cot” to this visitor class, tax dollars are nonetheless extracted. Funds are then appropriated to feed and shelter our “guests.” A distinction without a difference.

In many cases, the foreigners arrive not only armed, but hostile to the host nation. So much for charitable outreach.

Moreover, bureaucratic appendages of the host government demand these invaders be fed, housed, clothed, and granted all rights only previously understood to be held by native sons and daughters of the land.

In other words, the United States have been under foreign occupation for decades.

Historically, citizens have been unwitting or complicit in the takeover. Today, however, the second Trump Administration combats the invasion—at least partially—with its early rhetoric.

Will the Third Amendment finally have some teeth?

Regardless, Constitutional amendments are of no concern to the wolves in sheep’s clothing out there on the prowl. They condemn America’s supposed closed borders, all in the name of humanitarianism and other such egalitarian twaddle.

The reality? American borders have always been permeable. Notwithstanding, invaders by the thousands are either captured or turned away every year.

For as many that are caught, many more enter—all amounting to a high-stakes game of Whac-A-Mole.

As Pat Buchanan explained in State of Emergency (2006), “Each year, we catch more people breaking in at the border than all the Swedes and Norwegians who came to America in 200 years.”

In nearly two decades since Buchanan wrote, the situation has only become more drastic. Instead of considering such wonton lawbreaking as detrimental to society, modern Americans are trained to dismiss what is happening at the border as a “humanitarian crisis.”

In an odd turn of events, the Biden Administration’s feckless “border czar,” and erstwhile vice president, replaced a manageable têt-à-tête—the Mexican immigration issue—with an ever-present threat of an unwaveringly hostile, non-Mexican, global population, devoted to various foreign governments from both near and far.

Wolves scratch at the door. Huffing and puffing.

As our elites continue their gaslighting about the benefits of immigration, their message is clear: Americans don’t deserve to live in their native land any more than a “migrant” or a “refugee” does.

Comes the refrain: “We’re all immigrants.” We’re told that some of these outsiders may even deserve our homes more than we do. “Privilege” and other such inanities are to blame.

It’s all a disgusting perversion of human existence.

The nouveau célébrité priest James Martin, S.J., who acts more like an apparatchik of the Democratic Party than a shepherd leading souls to Christ, is a prominent figure in this regard. Martin identifies as a Catholic priest in good standing but nonetheless dedicates much of his public ministry to bucking the Church’s social teaching, promoting his own dalliances with heresy, and cheerleading others who do the same.

For instance, the “Good Jesuit” goes out of his way so as not to discourage the sinful behaviors of alphabet people. Since he believes such folks are “marginalized,” Martin offers no public condemnations or admonitions for such purposeful and grave sin.

Same with his latest cause du jour— “migrants.”

In the battle for souls, Martin’s preferred weapon is the cudgel of shame, shrouded in ambiguity. “Judge not,” he’ll often write.

Yet, as he sits in the comfort of his own chambers, the smug cleric judges harshly those who don’t fall in line with his heterodox catechism.

Additionally, Martin and others of his ilk pretend that all migrants are refugees. They contend that the lion’s share of immigrants is wholesome and do not bring along large-scale crime.

The bell curve disagrees.

Martin has succumbed to the “NAXALT”—not all [X] are like that—fallacy. Perhaps willingly.

In his recurrent assertions, Martin suggests that it is the host government’s duty to house, clothe, and feed all migrants, whilst granting them all the benefits and “rights” its host people are imbued with. Lest one disagree, The Cult of Martin shall shame you for not fulfilling—its unique version of—your Christian duty.

Admittedly, Martin’s tactics are brilliant, though devious. The Martinite ideology relies upon rejecting two millennia of Catholic teaching while utilizing the priest’s own cherry-picked canon of Scripture for its justification. Complicating the matter is Martin himself, who is on record blatantly misquoting the Bible.

Yet, there is nary a trace of an apology when proven incorrect.

Members of the Society of Jesus, like Martin, are required to take a vow of poverty—all their earned money and possessions become property of the community. Assuming Martin took the vow with sincere intention, it becomes a bit rich when Martin admonishes others for being uncharitable toward “migrants” when he can simply plead poverty as an excuse for exhibiting such behavior.

Plus, it’s not as if Americans are uncharitable. Many Americans are non-Christian, yes, but generally, Americans tend go out of their way to help others.

Furthermore, since the tea was thrown in Boston Harbor, there have been more than two-hundred fifty years of law and tradition affirming an American’s right not to be prosecuted (or shamed) if they choose not to willingly house and feed a Redcoat, a SEAL, or even a “migrant” —let alone such families.

Though the winds of change rustled for decades, this affirmation flipped during the Obama and Biden years.

Suddenly, one became “racist” or uncharitable if he didn’t cotton to unfettered immigration. Into the void, a second Trump Administration arrived to restore a modicum of normalcy within the culture and to advocate for traditions that slipped away.

DOGE and other policy positions taken within the Trump Administration are creating a groundswell of backlash against previous regimes. No longer is it considered fair for Americans to foot the bills of those politicians and bureaucrats who have frittered away the country’s resources.

They are spendthrifts with taxpayer dollars yet happen to be notorious skinflints in private. Hypocrites. Soon there will be no place for them.

Forever the intention was: America for Americans. It shall be again.

But if one does not like, or even believe, the Trump Administration on these matters, he has plenty of company.

And it appears that The Donald may just be a figurehead to the entire movement.

It matters not.

We’re not going back. Not by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins.

They are.

This originally appeared on The O’Leary Review.

The post How Much Longer Can America Co-Exist With the Enemies Upon Its Shores? appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Modern medicine…It isn’t organised to serve human health, but only itself, as an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”―Ivan Illich

Doctors were making mistakes for thousands of years and sometimes the treatments were worse than the disease. However, in the late 19th century, things got exponentially worse with the onset of the modern medical system as we know it. In particular, the availability of drugs to entire populations has caused a trail of destruction so vast that most people have become oblivious to the ongoing catastrophe.

At this point there may be protests that the medico-pharmaceutical system has brought great overall benefits to our communities. People might suggest, “surely the huge improvements in our average life spans and various health metrics were the result of the interventions?” Unfortunately, that is not the case and there is no evidence that medical measures provide net benefits to the population. As we have previously determined:

“the 20th century’s celebrated medical triumphs such as vaccines and antibiotics could not be responsible for the improved health and survival metrics…the improvements came about when we addressed nutrition, hygiene and our living environments – in other words, the terrain.”

There are certainly occasions when limb and life saving procedures are performed by skilled doctors, or drugs like “synthetic” insulin are used to treat type I diabetes. However, such interventions make up only a tiny part of what takes place in the medical system. Mostly, it concerns itself with elective surgery, an increasing array of tests, and the dispensing of drugs to entire populations. It is a trillion-dollar business and its own survival has become its focus.

Having previously worked in the system, I can attest that it is not a case of doctors secretly going along with this monumental scam. Most of them are unaware that despite their extensive training, they have been seriously misled by the medical establishment’s claims about itself. I will openly concede that I was fooled by these fantastic claims that were parroted within the profession as supposedly undeniable facts.

Unfortunately, it can take the death of a loved one or personal suffering from an intervention to realise the dangers of the medical system. I recently interviewed Dr Leigh Willoughby, an anaesthetist who developed a life-threatening clot following the receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine. It woke her up to the fraud of the alleged COVID pandemic and the realisation it had been a staged fear campaign. However, equally shocking was her colleagues’ reluctance to accept she had a vaccine injury.

To add insult to the injury, the medical regulators started an “investigation” into her conduct after she went public with her story. Like my husband Dr Mark Bailey and I, Dr Willoughby elected not to cooperate with the Medical Council and had her name removed from the register. As I have previously written for the Canberra Daily, registered doctors are not permitted to speak openly to the public, particularly when it goes against industry (and government) narratives.

The modern medical system being jealously guarded by the “authorities” portrays itself as a cradle-to-grave programme of “health care”. For many individuals it starts on day one of their life with unnecessary blood tests and injections. As Dr Tom Cowan recently remarked:

“One of the most dangerous places for an otherwise well child is a paediatrician’s office. You’re more likely to get injured or suffer adverse consequences or events as a result of seeing a paediatrician or family doctor than just about anything else you could do.”

A feature of the current epoch is that a large proportion of our population has a feeling of dependence on this system. They have been conditioned to accept that it is normal to be labelled with a collection of diseases over time, many of which “require” long-term drugs. These illnesses are typically put down to age, bad “germs”, bad genes or simply bad luck. In other words, things that we cannot do much about.

The tragedy of such a narrative is that individuals become passive participants in a system that profits from their ongoing sickness. In fact, it is the belief in the system that is probably the most damaging factor at work, as Ivan Illich stated in his 1975 book, Medical Nemesis:

“More health damages are caused by the belief of people that they cannot cope with illness without modern medicines than by doctors who foist their ministrations on patients.”

The medical system is a patch up service and is best employed for those rare occasions involving emergencies or serious injuries.

Otherwise, it is not a pathway to true health and well being. In fact, it is a pathway to further ruin for our community and economy. The best outcomes can be achieved much more readily through the eternal wisdom of right thinking and right living.

Learning to be your own physician is a life lesson that can truly save your life.

Dr Sam Bailey is a medical author and health educator from New Zealand. Her books include Virus Mania, Terrain Therapy and The Final Pandemic.

The post The Healthcare Hoax appeared first on LewRockwell.