Aggregatore di feed

In February 2025 the U.S. started talks with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine. The Europeans were against such talks. They were still dreaming of winning the lost war – of keeping control over Ukraine by providing it with security guarantees.

The Trump administration gave them a lecture in form of a catalog of questions. As I summarized the issue at that time:

The U.S. has recognized that there aren’t enough troops, money or will to achieve a better negotiation position for what’s left of Ukraine. The European ‘elite’ still fails to get that.
…
There are still dreams of ‘security guarantees’ which would be given to Ukraine after it files for peace or surrenders.

No such guarantees would make any sense. When peace is achieved there will be only one manner that can prevent a new outbreak of war: good behavior towards Russians and Russia by what will be left of Ukraine.
…
The U.S. negotiation team handed the Europeans a list of questions that will hopefully help them to come to grips with that ..
…
Here are the questions with answers by me in Italic:

1) What do you view as a Europe-backed security guarantee or assurance that would serve as a sufficient deterrent to Russia while also ensuring this conflict ends with an enduring peace settlement?

There is no Europe-backed guarantee possible that would be a ‘sufficient deterrent’.

2) Which European and/or third countries do you believe could or would participate in such an arrangement?

Each could provide a few dozen soldiers (plus rotations). None has the size of forces and/or stamina to really commit to the mission.

Are there any countries you believe would be indispensable?

The U.S. – if it would give nuclear guarantees to prevent the eventual annihilation of any ‘security guarantee’ force.

Would your country be willing to deploy its troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement?

No!

3) If third country military forces were to be deployed to Ukraine as part of a peace arrangement, what would you consider to be the necessary size of such a European-led force?

…

The purpose and point of the six questions the U.S. gave to the Europeans was to induce some realist thinking:

Applying such one will come to the conclusion that nothing but a long term peace agreement, which does not necessitate ‘guarantees’, makes any sense.

But they still did not get it.

It took the Europeans seven month of highly publicized discussion to finally acknowledge that there was no way for them to provide Ukraine with ‘security guarantees’. The only realistic variant they could think of was to threaten Russia with a nuclear war which they can’t but did wanted the U.S. to do. The U.S. wont do that. Neither Trump nor any other U.S. president will agree to risk New York over Kiev.

But the Europeans still do not want to make peace. Their new idea was to push the U.S. to put more sanctions on Russia:

The European Union is sending a delegation to Washington to ready new joint sanctions against Russia, European Council President António Costa said Friday.

“We are working with the United States and other like-minded partners to increase our pressure through further direct and secondary sanctions,” Costa said at a press conference in the western Ukrainian city of Uzhhorod, following a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Costa added “a European team is traveling to Washington, D.C. to work with our American friends” but did not reveal who would take part in the delegation.

The Trump administration is now copying the February idea of the catalog of question about security guarantees.

Trump is telling the Europeans “you jump first”:

Donald J. Trump – @realDonaldTrump – Sep 12, 2025, 23:15 UTC

A LETTER SENT BY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TO ALL NATO NATIONS AND, THE WORLD: “I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA. As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia. Anyway, I am ready to “go” when you are. Just say when? I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR. China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip. This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have started if I was President!), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR. I am only here to help stop it, and save thousands of Russian and Ukrainian lives (7,118 lives lost last week, alone. CRAZY!). If NATO does as I say, the WAR will end quickly, and all of those lives will be saved! If not, you are just wasting my time, and the time, energy, and money of the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

Like with the catalog of questions about security guarantees Trump is trying to induce some realist thinking into the boneheaded European ‘elite’.

Nearly every country in Europe is still consuming Russian oil. It is either bought directly from Russia or through Turkey or India. Europe can not put high tariffs on China or India. The responses from those countries would be devastating for Europe’s economies.

There is no way to sanction Russia, directly or indirectly, into ending the war.

Trump knows this. It is why he is calling the Europeans bluff.

We can only hope that they will learn from it …

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump Calls European’s Sanction Bluff appeared first on LewRockwell.

Charlie Kirk was not killed by a kook in the audience .  It was an organized assassination.  The rifleman was on a roof, which indicates planning and forethought. The rifleman was an expert.  One shot did the job.  The rifleman disappeared, which indicates planning. Kirk’s murder has the mark of a professional planned assassination.

Why was Charlie Kirk assassinated?  Because he was a leader beyond the control of the ruling establishment?  The ruling establishment has never tolerated leaders who are not their pawns.  Think Martin Luther King.  He was a rising leader of black Americans, and some white Americans were beginning to see some merit in the man. Like all humans, King had his faults, but he spoke reconciliation not only between black and white Americans  but also between the US and the world. The establishment eliminated the leadership threat.  Think of the eight-year effort to politically assassinate Donald Trump:  Russiagate, documents gate, insurrection gate, four criminal indictments, civil suits to confiscate his assets, constant media hostility.  

Kirk is credited with leading American youth back to God and family values, away from drugs, video game violence, and pornography.  He thus threatened important commercial profits.  If Andrew Anglin is correct, Kirk’s downside is that he was a shill for Israel. See this.

Kirk was a possible future president who could have sufficient public support to dismantle the  American Ruling Class.  This could be the reason Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

Trump’s supporters should make some effort to comprehend the enormous challenge Trump faces.  If they keep showing their unhappiness with him, the Ruling Establishment will decide the time is right for a third assassination attempt. 

The post The Assassination of Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

With the murder of 31-year-old noted conservative advocate Charlie Kirk, it’s worth asking an important question: Is America great again yet?

My answer: Far from it. In my book, Kirk’s killing demonstrates that America is still a very sick, dysfunctional nation. Not only are there periodic killings like this one, there are also mass killings. Just recently, there was the killing of those children at a Catholic school in Minneapolis. There was also the recent killing of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska, a refugee from Ukraine who was killed by man who seemingly had no apparent motive to kill her.

And let’s not forget that we still live in a massive drug-addled society, one in which millions of Americans are ingesting drugs because, U.S. officials say, they are being “attacked” by international drug dealers who, I guess, are somehow forcing them to ingest the drugs against their will. The fact that President Trump and his militarized drug warriors are still fiercely waging the decades-old, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual war on drugs — and are now knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately killing people who they suspect of violating U.S. drugs laws, with the aim of preventing millions of Americans from ingesting drugs — is, it seems to me, proof positive that America is not yet great again.

Let’s also not forget the soaring suicide rate among young people. When people who are just starting out in life are checking out early, that, to me, is a surefire sign that not only is America not great again yet but, in fact, is still a very sick society. Add to that suicide phenomenon the soaring suicide rate among veterans, including those who have supposedly protected our “freedoms” by killing millions of people in foreign countries.

And therein, I contend, lies a big problem — the fact the U.S. government — our government — is one of the biggest killing machines in history. But the fact that the millions of people it has killed are foreigners makes the killings, in the eyes of U.S. officials and many Americans, no big deal. After all, don’t forget: Those millions of dead people are not Americans. They are just foreigners.

Here is my contention, one that I have regularly made over the years, especially in the context of one of America’s periodic mass killings:

In every society, there are what I call “off-kilter” people. In normal times and in a healthy society, those off-kilter people don’t harm anyone. We all can tell that they are off-kilter but people feel sympathy for them, not fear.

For all of our lives, the mindset has been that so long as the U.S. killing machine is killing people “over there” (i.e., in foreign lands), Americans need not concern themselves, especially if a large number of U.S. troops aren’t being killed in the process. The notion has been that the mass killings in foreign lands would have no effect on American life at home. Americans could go on with their work, vacations, and hobbies and just block out of their minds, their consciousnesses, and their consciences what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing to people “over there” with their invasions, coups, assassinations, provocations, foreign aid, undeclared wars, and wars of aggression.

I contend that that was never going to happen. I hold that, like it or not, the mass killing “over there” at the hands of the U.S. national-security state was inevitably going to seep into society here at home. It is those mass killings, I contend, that have triggered something in the off-kilter people that causes them either to retaliate in a perverted way here at home for what the U.S. government has done (and continues to do) to people “over there,” or to engage in some sort of warped copycat killing here at home, or both.

Most everyone is expressing tremendous shock and grief over the killing of Charlie Kirk — and, of course, rightly so. But consider, on the other hand, the U.S. government’s killing of those 11 Venezuelan citizens in that boat in international waters a few days ago. Where is the grief over those deaths? It is virtually non-existent. Indeed, many right-wingers are exultant over those deaths and want the U.S. military to do it much more of the same. They exclaim, “Death to more suspected Venezuelan drug dealers!” It’s considered to be no big deal. After all, it’s not like they are Americans. They’re just foreigners.

But it is a big deal. Every one of those dead Venezuelans was innocent — that is, if one accepts the traditional American jurisprudential principle of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with competent and relevant evidence. Those dead people were never convicted of anything. Under the law, they are as innocent as you and I. I don’t care if the president or vice-president of the United States or any other federal official are accusing them of pushing drugs. Their accusations constitute nothing. After all, let’s not forget that there are plenty of people who the feds accuse of crimes who are later found not guilty by a jury.

Moreover, even if those 11 dead people were carrying drugs, that doesn’t mean they deserved to be killed. It’s just a drug offense, one that wouldn’t even have entailed the death penalty if they had been tried and convicted in a court of law. Indeed, contrary to what U.S. officials claim, international drug dealers don’t “attack” Americans by forcing them to snort cocaine or inject heroin. Instead, they sell their drugs to drug-addled Americans who are eager to buy the drugs as part of living in a very sick and dysfunctional society.

The biggest factor in all this is that those dead Venezuelans are not Americans. They are foreigners. That means they just don’t count. Why should we feel sorry for them? They are no different from the millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chileans, Cubans, and other “gooks” who the U.S. killing machine has killed, either directly or indirectly, over the decades. Why should we feel bad about their widows and children? Those dead people weren’t entitled to be arrested, prosecuted, and tried in a court of law, no matter what the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states. After all, they weren’t Americans. They deserved to be killed, just like the other millions of foreigners that the Pentagon and the CIA have killed during our lifetimes. Indeed, notice what U.S. officials declared immediately after those extra-judicial killings near Venezuela — they wanted to assure the American people that no American soldiers had lost their lives while killing those Venezuelans. That’s all that matters. Americans need not concern themselves. They can just return to their ordinary lives and leave the killing to their national-security-state killing machine. Except that the off-kilter people somehow fail to get the memo.

We don’t know who killed Charlie Kirk and so we obviously don’t know what the motive was. But I’m willing to bet that there is a good chance that whoever it was, he was one of those off-kilter people in American life. I suppose it is just a coincidence but it is ironic that many Americans are celebrating the deaths of those eleven innocent Venezuelans while, at the same time, mourning the death of American Charlie Kirk. Like I say, America is clearly not great again yet. It remains a very sick society.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Is America Great Again Yet? appeared first on LewRockwell.

For several years I’ve been turning over in my mind an idea that initially struck me as far-fetched, but now strikes me as a distinct possibility. Could it be that people suffering from some degree of mental illness are now heavily influencing or even directing cultural, political, and economic affairs? To put it more bluntly, are we now being constantly buffeted and even, in some jurisdictions, governed by lunatics?

I’d already been pondering this for some time when I stumbled across an essay that Carl Jung wrote in 1957 titled The Plight of the Individual in Modern Society. His opening reflections strike me as an apt description of the irrational and destabilizing phenomena we’ve witnessed in recent times. I have highlighted in bold the sentences that strike me as the most relevant to our situation today.

Everywhere in the West there are subversive minorities, who—sheltered by our humanitarianism and our sense of justice—hold the incendiary torches ready, with nothing to stop the spread of their ideas except the critical reason of a single, fairly intelligent, mentally stable stratum of the population. One should not, however, overestimate the thickness of this stratum. . . .

Taking plebiscites as a criterion, one could, at an optimistic estimate, put its upper limit at about 40% of the electorate. A rather more pessimistic view would not be unjustified either, since the gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of man’s outstanding peculiarities. And even where it exists, it proves to be wavering and inconstant, the more so, as a rule, the bigger the political groups are. The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional state should succumb to a fit of weakness.

Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason having any effect ceases, and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish fantasies. That is to say, a sort of collective possession results, which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic.

In this state, all those elements whose existence is merely tolerated as asocial under the rule of reason, come to the top. Such individuals are by no means rare curiosities to be met only in prisons and lunatic asylums. For every manifest case of insanity, there are, in my estimation, at least 10 latent cases who seldom get to the point of breaking out openly, but whose views and behavior, for all their appearance of normality, are influenced by unconsciously morbid and perverse factors.

There are, of course, no medical statistics on the frequency of latent psychosis, for understandable reasons. But even if their number should amount to less than 10 times that of manifest psychoses and of manifest criminality, the relatively small percentage of the population they represent is more than compensated for by the peculiar dangerousness of these people.

Their mental state is that of a collectively excited group ruled by affective judgments and wish fantasies. In a state of collective possession, they are the adapted ones and consequently they feel quite at home in it. They know from their own experience the language of these conditions, and they know how to handle them. Their chimerical ideas, spawned by fanatical resentment, appeal to the collective irrationality and find fruitful soil there, for they express all those motives and resentments which lurk in more normal people under the cloak of reason and insight. They are, therefore, despite their small number in comparison with the population as a whole, dangerous sources of infection, precisely because the so-called normal person possesses only a limited degree of self knowledge.

The expressions of jubilation at the coldblooded murder of Charlie Kirk while he was speaking at a college campus reveal that we are now facing a psychic epidemic in the United States along these lines.

Social media is full of posts by totally deranged people making exclamations of joy and excitement while recounting—in pornographic detail—the spectacle of a young man shot in the neck by a high-powered rifle.

There was a time not so long ago when expressing homicidal blood lust was considered the exclusive domain of psychopathic killers. Now one may peruse thousands of posts by people doing precisely this, and their posts are liked by hundreds of thousands of people in aggregate.

Given that Dr. McCullough and I have been relentlessly censored on social media for talking about early treatment of COVID-19 and vaccine safety concerns, we find the current state of affairs especially indicative that the lunatics are now running the asylum.

Especially discouraging is Jung’s observation:

Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason having any effect ceases, and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish fantasies.

To me, one of the many astonishing things about Charlie Kirk is that he made a bold, valiant, and persistent effort to try to speak with young, overheated lunatics on college campuses. I would rather take my chances at bull riding or venomous snake handing than try to reason with deranged college students.

It saddens me to write this, as I spent many of my happiest years in college, graduate school, and as a research fellow at an academic institute in Vienna. However, the events of recent years have taught us the futility of trying to reason with lunatics.

Reprinted with permission from Courageous Discourse.

The post Futility of Trying to Reason With Lunatics appeared first on LewRockwell.

Slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk had claimed he received death threats on a daily basis for speaking out on issues including Washington’s funding of the Ukraine conflict. At least one assassination threat from a Ukrainian spokesperson could have targeted him personally, he reportedly said.

In 2023, Kiev’s Center for Countering Disinformation accused Kirk of “spreading Russian propaganda.” The following year, the Ukrainian media outlet Texty.org.ua placed Kirk and TPUSA on a blacklist of 386 individuals and 76 organizations in the United States that opposed funding for Ukraine.

Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, a US transgender woman and ex-head of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense’s English-language propaganda, vowed to “hunt down” those she called “Kremlin propagandists,” adding that a strike against an individual favored by Russian President Vladimir Putin was imminent.

“Are they going to murder, or try to murder Steve Bannon or Tucker Carlson, or myself?” Kirk asked in response, referencing other conservative American media personalities.

“None of us are Putin puppets or Russian propagandists, but The New York Times calls us that, Twitter calls us that,” Kirk said on his show. “And that person, who is funded by the US Treasury, says: we are gonna come murder you.”

Whether the US government was paying Ashton-Cirillo became a point of public debate in the country after her statement went viral. She was swiftly removed from the Ukrainian forces.

Kirk has remained a persistent critic of Zelensky, whom he labeled “an ungrateful, petulant child,” a “go-go dancer” undeserving of a single US tax dollar, and “a puppet of the CIA who marched his own people into a needless slaughter.”

This article was originally published on RT News.

The post Charlie Kirk Once Questioned if Ukraine Would Try To Kill Him appeared first on LewRockwell.

On September 10th, the Reuters propaganda-news agency headlined “How united is the ‘autocratic alliance’ challenging the West?” and said that “Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang are far from forming a cohesive bloc.” However, on the last day of August and the first day of September, was held in Tianzin China the 25th annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a mutual-assistance organization whose members are Belarus, China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan,, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. North Korea isn’t even included in it; so, its ideology isn’t at issue here.

Here was the 1,300-word ideological statement that was made on September 1st by the meeting’s convenor, China’s head-of-state:

——

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyjh/202509/t20250901_11699629.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20250911031329/https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyjh/202509/t20250901_11699629.html

“Pooling the Strength of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to Improve Global Governance”

1 September 2025

Statement by H.E. Xi Jinping

President of the People’s Republic of China

At the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus” Meeting

Tianjin, September 1, 2025

Distinguished Colleagues,

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War and the founding of the United Nations. It is a milestone prompting us to remember the past and create a better future together. Eighty years ago, the international community learned profound lessons from the scourge of two world wars and founded the United Nations, thus writing a new page in global governance. Eighty years later, while the historical trends of peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit remain unchanged, the Cold War mentality, hegemonism and protectionism continue to haunt the world. New threats and challenges have been only increasing. The world has found itself in a new period of turbulence and transformation. Global governance has come to a new crossroads.

History tells us that at difficult times, we must uphold our original commitment to peaceful coexistence, strengthen our confidence in win-win cooperation, advance in line with the trend of history, and thrive in keeping pace with the times.

To this end, I wish to propose the Global Governance Initiative (GGI). I look forward to working with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system and advancing toward a community with a shared future for humanity.

First, we should adhere to sovereign equality. We should maintain that all countries, regardless of size, strength and wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers and beneficiaries in global governance. We should promote greater democracy in international relations and increase the representation and voice of developing countries.

Second, we should abide by international rule of law. The purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and other universally recognized basic norms of international relations must be observed comprehensively, fully and in their entirety. International law and rules should be applied equally and uniformly. There should be no double standards, and the house rules of a few countries must not be imposed upon others.

Third, we should practice multilateralism. We should uphold the vision of global governance featuring extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit, strengthen solidarity and coordination, and oppose unilateralism. We should firmly safeguard the status and authority of the U.N., and ensure its irreplaceable, key role in global governance.

Fourth, we should advocate the people-centered approach. We should reform and improve the global governance system to ensure that the people of every nation are the actors in and beneficiaries of global governance, so as to better tackle the common challenges for mankind, better narrow the North-South gap, and better safeguard the common interests of all countries.

Fifth, we should focus on taking real actions. We should adopt a systematic and holistic approach, coordinate global actions, fully mobilize various resources, and strive for more visible outcomes. We should enhance practical cooperation to prevent the governance system from lagging behind or being fragmented.

Colleagues,

The founding declaration and the Charter of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization made it clear at the outset that we should promote a more democratic, just and equitable international political and economic order. Over the past 24 years, the SCO has adhered faithfully to the Shanghai Spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diversity of civilizations, and pursuit of common development. We have discussed regional affairs together, built platforms and mechanisms together, and benefited from cooperation together. We have also initiated many new global governance concepts and put them into practice. The SCO has increasingly become a catalyst for the development and reform of the global governance system.

In response to the once-in-a-century transformations unfolding faster across the world, the SCO should step up to play a leading role and set an example in carrying out the GGI.

We should contribute to safeguarding world peace and stability. With a vision for common security, SCO member states have signed the Treaty on Long-Term Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation, conducted effective security cooperation, and maintained overall stability in the region. We should continue to uphold the principles of non-alliance, non-confrontation and not targeting any third party. We should combine our efforts in addressing various threats and challenges, give full play to the newly established SCO Universal Center for Countering Security Challenges and Threats and the SCO Anti-drug Center, and build a community of common security in the region. We should remain a force for stability in this volatile world.

We should step up to take the responsibility for open cooperation across the globe. SCO member states have rich energy resources, big markets and strong internal driving forces, and we are contributing a rising share to world economic growth. We should continue to dismantle walls, not erect them; we should seek integration, not decoupling. We should advance high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, and push for a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization.

China will readily share the opportunities of its vast market, and continue to implement the action plan for high-quality development of economic and trade cooperation within the SCO family. China will establish three major platforms for China-SCO cooperation in energy, green industry, and the digital economy, and will set up three major cooperation centers for scientific and technological innovation, higher education, and vocational and technical education. We will work with fellow SCO countries to increase the installed capacity of photovoltaic and wind power each by 10 million kilowatts in the next five years. We are ready to build with all sides the artificial intelligence application cooperation center, and share the dividends of progress in AI. We welcome all parties to use the Beidou Satellite Navigation System and invite countries with relevant capacities to take part in the International Lunar Research Station project.

We should set an example in championing the common values of humanity. Among SCO member states, cultural exchanges are packed with highlights, people-to-people interactions are frequent and robust, and different civilizations radiate their unique splendor. We should continue to promote exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations, and write brilliant chapters of peace, amity and harmony among countries different in history, culture, social system and development stage.

China will host and ensure the success of the SCO Political Parties Forum, the SCO Green and Sustainable Development Forum, and the SCO Forum on Traditional Medicine. In the next five years, China will treat 500 patients with congenital heart disease, perform 5,000 cataract operations, and carry out 10,000 cancer screenings for other SCO countries.

We should act to defend international fairness and justice. In compliance with the principles of justice and fairness, SCO member states have engaged constructively in international and regional affairs, and upheld the common interests of the Global South. We should continue to unequivocally oppose hegemonism and power politics, practice true multilateralism, and stand as a pillar in promoting a multipolar world and greater democracy in international relations.

China supports the SCO in expanding cooperation with other multilateral institutions, such as the U.N., ASEAN, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, to jointly uphold the international economic and trade order and improve global and regional governance.

Colleagues,

An ancient Chinese philosopher said of the importance of principles, “Uphold the Great Principle, and the world will follow.” In two days, China will commemorate solemnly the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. Many colleagues will join us in Beijing. We are ready, together with all parties, to uphold courageously the great principle and the common good of the world, promote a correct historical perspective on World War II, resolutely safeguard the fruits of our victory in the War, and deliver more benefits to the entire humanity through the reform of the global governance system and the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

Thank you.

——

China is overwhelmingly the nation that in the U.S. is called the “top adversary” (meaning enemy-number-one), and also called “#1 adversary”. On 18 March 2024, Gallup headlined “Americans Still See China as Nation’s Top Foe, Russia Second.”

On 19 May 2024, I headlined “China & Russia (ChinUssia or RussChina) Announce Their Foreign Policy” and presented the 10-part, 8,000-word “Joint Statement between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Deepening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries”

That is far (more than 6 times) lengthier than Xi’s 1 September 2025 statement, and both of them are saying essentially the same thing.

What it is, is the ideology that America’s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt developed (during August 1941 through April 1945) for handling international relations in the post-WW2 world but which his immediate successor President Truman aborted and reversed so as to create an all-inclusive U.S. empire, which Truman started on 25 July 1945, when he created on that date the Cold War. Russia and China should credit FDR with having first created this foreign-affairs ideology, in order to challenge the U.S. empire to adopt it for themselves (which would mean their ending their empire; and they could then praise Gorbachev for having done something similar in 1991).

So, if that ideology (FDR’s vision) is the U.S. empire’s enemy, then what does this make of the U.S. empire itself? (Like Hitler’s, only with different top-targeted victims — other than Russia and China themselves?) Whatever it is, should end as peacefully as is possible (just as Gorbachev had set the example).

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Here’s the ideology of The West’s ‘Enemies’: appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump says that tariffs are good for American workers. He claims that because tariffs raise costs on products manufactured abroad, they will make it feasible for American firms to make these goods here. Economists who oppose tariffs argue that free trade is more “efficient” than protectionism, but what they ignore is that this alleged “efficiency” comes at the expense of American workers. We are Americans, and we should follow an “America First” policy. In this week’s article, I’m going to examine Trump’s case, relying on the insights of the great Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

The key point to bear in mind in the whole tariff controversy is that trade is voluntary. People aren’t forced to trade but will do so only if they expect to benefit from the trade. This basic principle applies internationally as well as nationally: people won’t engage in trade unless they think they will get something out of it. As Rothbard says, “Before analyzing the problem of the terms of exchange, it is well to recall the reason for exchange—the fact that each individual values more highly the good he gets than the good he gives up. This fact is enough to eliminate the fallacious notion that, if Crusoe and Jackson exchange 5,000 berries for one cow, there is some sort of ‘equality of value’ between the cow and the 5,000 berries. Value exists in the valuing minds of individuals, and these individuals make the exchange precisely because for each of them there is an inequality of values between the cow and the berries. For Crusoe the cow is valued more than the 5,000 berries; for Jackson it is valued less. Otherwise, the exchange could not be made. Therefore, for each exchange there is a double inequality of values, rather than an equality, and hence there are no ‘equal values’ to be ‘measured’ in any way.”

Because tariffs interfere with voluntary trade, they distort the market and raise costs for American consumers, who must pay higher prices for what they want. They will be buying American products instead of foreign goods, but this costs them more than they would have spent without the tariffs. Rothbard explains: “Tariffs and various forms of import quotas prohibit, partially or totally, geographical competition for various products. Domestic firms are granted a quasi-monopoly and, generally, a monopoly price. Tariffs injure the consumers within the ‘protected’ area, who are prevented from purchasing from more efficient competitors at a lower price. They also injure the more efficient foreign firms and the consumers of all areas, who are deprived of the advantages of geographic specialization. In a free market, the best resources will tend to be allocated to their most value-productive locations. Blocking interregional trade will force factors to obtain lower remuneration at less efficient and less value-productive tasks.”

Trump supporters object that even if consumers pay higher prices, American producers will profit. More manufacturing jobs will come to the United States. But this objection ignores the fact that many producers lose as well. Rothbard pulverizes this notion by pointing out that while trade barriers may save jobs in protected industries, they destroy jobs elsewhere in the economy by artificially raising the price of labor, in effect punishing more efficient businesses with higher costs of labor for the sake of the favored businesses or industries. Also, higher consumer prices mean less disposable income, leading to reduced spending in other sectors. Moreover, industries that rely on imported materials face higher costs, forcing them to cut back production or lay off workers. For example, suppose a tariff on steel raises the price of steel. Companies that use steel in their products will now have higher costs. They won’t be able to hire as many workers as before and some American workers will lose jobs. Trade, by contrast, reallocates resources to their most productive uses, creating wealth and enabling job growth in competitive industries. Rothbard stresses the fact that the free market, not government intervention, is best equipped to direct labor and capital efficiently.

But, Trump supporters will say, isn’t it true that some manufacturing jobs are created by tariffs? Well, let’s see what happened during Trump’s first term. Tariffs were imposed on a range of goods, from Chinese electronics to Canadian steel, under the banner of “America First.” The consequences were predictable: higher prices for consumers, disruptions to global supply chains, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, and a bailout for negatively affected but politically important constituencies. While these policies were marketed as a way to revitalize American manufacturing, they often had the opposite effect. Many businesses faced increased costs, forcing them to scale back operations or relocate production overseas. Meanwhile, consumers bore the brunt of higher prices, effectively paying a hidden tax to fund protectionist policies—to say nothing of taxpayers,

It is true that some new jobs were created, but these jobs cost the American economy more than they are worth. According to a study published in 2024 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the “Buy American” policies of Trump’s first jobs had a bad effect on the economy: “In a rare instance of agreement, Republicans and Democrats have converged on the idea that “Buy American” provisions should be expanded in order to increase American jobs. But a new paper finds that existing federal rules impose high costs on consumers. A September 2024 paper published by the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) found the Buy American Act has created more than 50,000 jobs. Just one catch: Each one of those jobs costs the economy more than $100,000. The Buy America Act of 1933 (BAA) is a New-Deal–era law that prohibits the federal government from purchasing foreign-made goods. The BAA’s mandate comprises two principal requirements: first, goods must be manufactured in the U.S.; second, at least 50 percent of the cost of inputs for final goods must be domestic. The NBER paper found that removing the BAA’s provisions would eliminate 100,000 manufacturing jobs, each of which costs the economy $130,000.” This study didn’t mention tariffs specifically, but you can be sure the result would have been the same.

Further, we need to bear in mind that particular tariffs are also supported by lobbyists for special interests, who pretend to be acting for the public good. In his great book Liberalism. Mises exposed this tactic: “Thus, the parties of special interests are obliged to be cautious.  In speaking of this most important point in their endeavors, they must resort to ambiguous expressions intended to obscure the true state of affairs.  Protectionist parties are the best example of this kind of equivocation.  They must always be careful to represent the interest in the protective tariffs they recommend as that of a wider group.  When associations of manufacturers advocate protective tariffs, the party leaders generally take care not to mention that the interests of individual groups and often even of individual concerns are by no means identical and harmonious.  The weaver is injured by tariffs on machines and yarn and will promote the protectionist movement only in the expectation that textile tariffs will be high enough to compensate him for the loss that he suffers from the other tariffs.  The farmer who grows fodder demands tariffs on fodder which the cattle raisers oppose; the winegrower demands a tariff on wine, which is just as disadvantageous to the farmer who does not happen to cultivate a vineyard as it is to the urban consumer.  Nevertheless, the protectionists appear as a single party united behind a common program.  This is made possible only by throwing a veil of obscurity over the truth of the matter.”

Trump claims that tariffs are needed for national security, but in fact free trade encourages peaceful international relations. Again, Mises gets at the heart of the matter: “It is a question of whether we shall succeed in creating throughout the world a frame of mind without which all agreements for the preservation of peace and all the proceedings of courts of arbitration will remain, at the crucial moment, only worthless scraps of paper.  This frame of mind can be nothing less than the unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions, if the prerequisites of peace are to be created and the causes of war eliminated.  As long as nations cling to protective tariffs, compulsory education, interventionism, and etatism, new conflicts capable of breaking out at any time into open warfare will continually arise to plague mankind.”

Let’s do everything we can to end tariffs and promote free trade!

The post Are Tariffs Good for American Workers? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mark Reynolds wrote:

Hi Lew…it’s been awhile. How about this one?

Fully Informed Jurors is How To Fight Against Slavery

The post It’s been a while… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post 9/11 Missing Links – Full Documentary on the Israeli Mossad Involvement of 9/11 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

This is the speech former Rep. Dennis Kucinich is delivering at the 9-11 Turning the Tide conference in DC. Link:

https://kucinichreport.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-24th-anniversary

The 9-11 conference can also be watched online. Link to conference details:

https://ic911.org/news/turning-the-tide-2025-starts-today-tune-in-live-or-watch-later/

The post The 9-11 Anniverary: US-Israel Collusion and the Road to War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

The Grayzone

The post Charlie Kirk Refused Netanyahu Funding Offer, was Frightened by Pro-Israeli Forces Before His Death appeared first on LewRockwell.

The 2025 annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, next week in Bodrum, Turkey.

The post The Preeminent Libertarian Meeting of the Year appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Keeper of the Flame appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Arbitrary and Prolonged Detention”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Is a Human Right

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

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

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

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

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

Very Much Precedented

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

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

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

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

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

ICE (Like Stigma) Now Operates in the Shadows

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

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

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

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

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

– Osama bin Laden

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

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

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

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

One-Way Dead-End Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Day Everything Changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Us.

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

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

For Our Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Cigarettes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predictable Phenomenon

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

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

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

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

This article was originally published on Premium Insights.

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

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

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

1. Vaccine Court 2.0: Revised and Updated: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Children’s Health Defense)
2. Never Feel Old Again: Aging Is a Mistake–Learn How to Avoid It (Never Be) 
3. Chasing Evil: Shocking Crimes, Supernatural Forces, and an FBI Agent’s Search for Hope and Justice
4. The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces
5. The Preparation: How To Become Competent, Confident, and Dangerous
6. Regenerate: Unlocking Your Body’s Radical Resilience through the New Biology 
7. Holistic Autoimmune Healing Bible: All-in-one Guide with a 30-Day Plan Built on the ROOT360 Protocol to Reduce Inflammation, Reclaim Energy, and Restore Clarity
8. Ludwig von Mises on Money and Inflation: A Synthesis of Several Lectures
9. The Chronological Guide to Bible Prophecy: An Illustrated Panorama from Genesis to Revelation
10. Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctorâ€s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease
11. Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality 
12. Never Fear Cancer Again: How to Prevent and Reverse Cancer (Never Be)
13. 50 States, 5,000 Ideas: Where to Go, When to Go, What to See, What to Do
14. The One-Minute Cure: The Secret to Healing Virtually All Diseases
15. Minimalist Gardening: The Good Guide to Growing Food with Less
16. The Last Shot 
    
17. Quiet Your Mind: A Men’s Guide: Practical Techniques to Stop Overthinking and Take Charge of Your Life 
    
18. Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines
    
19. Godless Crusade: The Progressive Campaign to Rid the World of Religion 
20. The Perennial Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Great Mystics, East and West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

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