Aggregatore di feed

Just last year in California, a federal court declared a first grader’s crayon drawing may constitute “impermissible harassment.” Ironic, perhaps, that such a decision was made in nation where—starting in elementary school—talk about the founding principle of liberty and the sanctity of an individual’s rights are drummed into the people daily.

Are such lessons serious? Were they ever?

This crayon drawing episode and its aftermath is not some dystopian fiction but came as a heavy dose of reality in an Orange County elementary school, where the phrase “Black Lives Mater” (sic), accompanied by the words “any life,” was deemed a punishable offense.

The case, B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., reads like a parody of modern American life. Yet it is all too real, and all too indicative of the country’s present trajectory. The simplicity of the facts, however, makes this episode noticeably chilling.

Reflect. Has venerable Orange County, long a bastion of conservativism and the last Republican stronghold within the Golden State, become a place where the freedom to think (or doodle) is subject to the whims of those styling themselves as arbiters of acceptable opinion?

For this is the same county that helped deliver California to Nixon three times in presidential elections, Reagan twice, Ford and Bush 41 once. In 1964, it was one of only five California counties to vote for Barry Goldwater, author of The Conscience of a Conservative. Today, a Republican only holds one of the six congressional districts serving Orange County residents.

Today, progressives and liberals dominate both the political and cultural landscape. Take the B.B. case where, in her first grade class, a six-year-old girl, referred to in court documents as “B.B.,” drew a picture. On it, she wrote “Black Lives Mater” in bold black marker. Beneath it, in lighter colors, the phrase “any life.”

She gave this drawing to a classmate.

For B.B.’s audacity, the principal summoned her to the office, accused the girl of racism, and forced her to apologize. B.B.’s other artistic endeavors were summarily banned, and she was barred from recess for two weeks.

Recall. This was the first grade.

Has the schoolhouse not become simply another battleground in the culture war, but the frontline in the theater of operations?

No longer are blackboards allowed. They’ve been replaced by an ideological whiteboard.

Within the classroom, the teaching profession has metamorphosed from those who deliver curricula to students to those serving as commissars of an aberrant culture.

Furthermore, the District Court’s decision was a masterclass in the art of abdication—abandoning reason, constitutional principle, and basic common sense. The court, in all its wisdom, determined that the First Amendment does not protect a first grader’s drawing if a teacher or administrator deems it “harassing” or “harmful.”

The reasoning, if we can call it that, states: “deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder.”

The court openly admits that the standard is subjective. “Harm” is up to the school authorities to determine. The First Amendment, once a bulwark against tyranny, is now a mere suggestion, one that is easily discarded whenever it proves inconvenient to the reigning orthodoxy.

Justifying its constitutional vandalism, the court leaned on the Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Yet, the Tinker standard permits schools to limit speech only when it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”

Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Search the record for any evidence that B.B.’s drawing caused a riot in the lunchroom or even a murmur of discontent in the classroom and it will be in vain. We should also safely assume that classroom competitions of Heads Up, Seven Up still went on without a hitch.

Yes, the first graders merely went on about their days. The supposed adults were the ones throwing fits and tantrums.

The only “disruption” was that of the school administration’s ideological tranquility. Put in the hands of the District Court, Tinker also twists into a license for censorship when the claim becomes protecting someone’s feelings.

This case is not an isolated incident. It is the logical culmination of a decades-long campaign to transform American schools from places of learning into laboratories of ideological conformity.

To wit: The phrase “Black Lives Matter” has attained the status of secular scripture. Try to contextualize, qualify, or even gently expand upon it—like B.B. did by adding the words “any life” —and you’re branded a heretic.

The court’s opinion made this explicit. In a Reason.com article from March 2024 discussing B.B. v. Capistrano, Eugene Volokh writes, “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogan is accepted as the one orthodoxy, and any perceived dissent from the view that black lives should be specially stressed in this context can be forbidden.”

Thus, the child who dares to suggest that all lives have value is branded a bigot, and the machinery of the state is brought to bear against her.

Volokh correctly identifies the danger posed by the court’s decision. He notes that the ruling “seems to be that this viewpoint is stripped of First Amendment protection,” and that “any perceived dissent from the view that black lives should be specially stressed in this context can be forbidden.”

Read the Whole Article

The post The Thought Police Arrive appeared first on LewRockwell.

One of the most disastrous elements of the post-World War II conservative movement in America has been its commitment to severing the ideology of “classical liberalism” from its historical roots in antiwar and anti-interventionist foreign policy. What we now call classical liberalism—the ideology of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Richard Cobden, and Herbert Spencer—was consistent in opposing state power in all spheres, both international and domestic.

This was true in the United States up until the early twentieth century when the people called liberals—now known as “classical liberals” or “libertarians”—were characterized by anti-imperialism, restraint in military spending, and a general philosophy that is now maligned with the term “isolationism.”

After the Second World War, however, the new so-called conservative movement succeeded in neutralizing the old laissez-faire liberal opposition to foreign intervention in the name of fighting communists. The conservatives replaced the old laissez-faire factions with a new incoherent ideology that claimed it favored “freedom and free markets” while also promoting runaway military spending and endless foreign interventionism. This, of course, was all to be done in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”

Many American conservatives who consider themselves to be “classical liberals,” or in some other way the ideological heirs of laissez-faire, have fallen for this historical bait and switch for many decades now.

The Real History of Classical Liberalism: Opposing the State and Its Wars

To better understand how immense this turnabout really was—and what a victory it was for the forces of militarism—we need to first consider just how closely the ideology of laissez-faire liberalism was associated with antiwar sentiment during the formative years of liberalism.

In his history of political thought, historian Ralph Raico notes that the ideology we now call classical liberalism considered opposition to war and foreign intervention as central to the ideology. Even the milquetoast liberals like British Prime Minister William Gladstone put peace up front and center in their political programs. Raico writes:

Extolling peace has characterized the classical liberal movement from the eighteenth century, at least from Turgot, on through the nineteenth century to even Gladstone, who wasn’t, frankly, that much of a liberal. His slogan in mid-Victorian Britain was, “Peace, retrenchment, and reform.”

This propeace liberalism was the standard form of liberalism in Britain through Richard Cobden’s Manchester School, and also in France through popularizers and scholars such as the radical liberal editors of the political journal Le censeur européen. At the top of every issue of the journal was the phrase “paix et liberté”—peace and freedom.

Among the journal’s editors were Charles Dunoyer, a leading figure of the French liberal school—and the close ally of Charles Comte, the son-in-law of Jean Baptiste-Say. Like most liberals of his time, including those of both the United States and Britain, Dunoyer opposed standing armies. He wrote:

“What is the production of the standing armies of Europe? It is consisted in massacres, rapes, pillages, conflagrations, vices and crimes, the deprivation, ruin and enslavement of the peoples. The standing armies have been the shame and the scourge of civilization.

Similarly, Dunoyer’s views were reflected in the writings of Frederic Bastiat who sought to abolish France’s standing army. In an 1847 pamphlet titled “The Utopian,” Bastiat reminded his readers that military expenditure is generally an enormous waste of money, and that the exploitation of the taxpayers could be greatly reduced were the size of the French military drastically lessened. Specifically, Bastiat sought to abolish “the entire army” with the exception of “some specialized divisions” which would have to be staffed with volunteers since Bastiat, of course, also sought to abolish conscription altogether. Bastiat sought to replace the state’s army with a militia of private citizens in possession of private arms. As Bastiat put it: “Every citizen must know two things: how to provide for his own existence and how to defend his country.”

In this, Bastiat was echoing American sentiments. In the United States, of course, opposition to militarism took the form of vehement opposition to a centralized military force and an American standing army. The lack of direct taxation made funding a large military difficult as well.

As liberals like George Mason made clear, the military power of the US was to reside principally in the private ownership of arms and in the locally controlled militias of the several states. Culturally, Americans of the nineteenth century regarded federal troops with high levels of suspicion. While it was considered laudable to serve a stint in the volunteer militias, Americans regarded full-time federal troops as shirkers living off the government dole. (The modern culture of fawning over government employees—at least the military variety—and thanking them for their “service” would have been considered bizarre in classical liberal nineteenth-century America.) These reviews reflected those of many of the founding generation of Americans, including James Madiason, who according to Raico: “wrote of war as perhaps the greatest of all enemies of public liberty, producing armies, debts, and taxes, ‘the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.’”

Moreover, Raico shows that Dunoyer’s views were typical of the liberals of the “industrialist school” which pioneered liberal exploitation theory. Contrary to the modern-day myth that classical liberals rejected notions of class conflict, it was actually the liberals who pioneered the idea. In this view, the “tax-eating” class exploits the “tax-paying” class which is forced to support the regime. In the classical liberal view of the industrialist school, war was a central means by which the regime and its allies exploited the productive classes.

Raico notes that “A propeace position was central to the industrialist point of view … their attack on militarism and standing armies was savage and relentless.” Herbert Spencer—a British liberal who was also highly influential in the United States in the late nineteenth century—can also be included among those who subscribed to the industrialist school’s exploitation theory. With Spencer, state warfare remanent of the past, and destructive of both freedom and economic progress. Or, as Raico sums up Spencer’s view:

Spencer believed … that warfare was suitable only to mankind’s primitive stage. The Western world, however, had long since left the stage of militancy and entered the stage of industrialism. … War in the contemporary world was retrograde and destructive of all higher values. Early in his career, back in 1848, Spencer maintained, as the Manchester school did, that wars were caused by the uncurbed ambition of the aristocracy.

The reference to the aristocracy was also a common sentiment among the classical liberals who saw the state’s obsession with war as a characteristic of the absolutist and anti-liberal states of Europe.

Raico shared this view, noting that in the pre-liberal world, most people were simply pawns to be manipulated for the benefit of the central state and its agents. According to Raico:

In 1740 Frederick II of Prussia— called “the Great,” probably …. because he was a mass murderer— plunged the world into war. Afterwards, when they asked him why, he said “because I wanted to be talked of.” It was possible in this world before liberalism and capitalism to talk of war in those terms because liberalism and the liberal ideology had not yet made war into an awful thing.

The tradition of the ruling classes treating war with a capricious attitude was the norm before the rise of liberalism in the eighteenth century. The great French liberal Benjamin Constant notes this attitude among the rulers of the ancient world. As Raico puts it, Constant believed that “the ancients, the Greeks, and the Romans, for all their achievements, were basically societies that were founded on war and on constant war making, which included, of course, imperialism and plunder of other societies.” These societies did not understand the value of markets and voluntary exchange as the liberals do, and thus these societies constructed their value systems around war, conflict, and force. As Constant put it:

War therefore predates trade. One is wild impulse, the other is civilized calculation. . . . The Roman Republic, without trade, without letters, without articles, having no internal occupation other than agriculture . . . and always threatened or threatening, engag[ed] in the business of uninterrupted military operations.

Ludwig von Mises also identified the ancient preoccupation with war when, in his book Liberalism, Mises directly contradicts the Greek Heraclitus who had declared that “War is father of all and king of all.” Rather, Mises writes that “Not war, but peace is the father of all things.”

Murray Rothbard echoed these sentiments. In his history of the post-war American right wing, Rothbard remembers his realization at the time that that ideology of warmongering was not hardly a modern invention. Rather, the modern militarist consensus of the social democrats and conservatives after the Second World War “was a reversion to the old despotic ancien régime.” He continues:

This ancien régime was the Old Order against which the libertarian and laissez-faire movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had emerged as a revolutionary opposition: an opposition on behalf of economic freedom and individual liberty. Jefferson, Cobden, and Thoreau as our forbears were ancestors in more ways than one; for both we and they were battling against a mercantilist statism that established bureaucratic despot ism and corporate monopolies at home and waged imperial wars abroad.

By “we,” Rothbard meant the libertarians—the true heirs of the classical liberals—and not the conservatives of the “New Right.”

In this, Rothbard was also echoing the anti-imperialists of America in the late nineteenth century who sought to rein in America’s drift toward militarism and European-style global intervention. Raico notes that the anti-imperialist drive was centered around the classical liberals Edward Atkinson—a follower of the Manchester School—and E.L. Godkin of The Nation, which Raico describes as “the flagship classical liberal publication” in the United States at the time.

But perhaps the most famous strike against America’s turn toward global militarism—as illustrated by the US’s war against Spain in 1898—was the work of William Graham Sumner. Sumner, an influential classical liberal and Yale sociologist delivered a lecture at Yale in 1899 titled “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.” The title was a play on words, given that the US had, in military terms, easily defeated the Spanish military. Yet, Sumner feared that it was actually the US—or at least the quickly expiring antiwar sentiments of republican America—that had been defeated in the war. Rather, Sumner contends that the Americans had abandoned the restraint of laissez-faire liberalism in favor of, as Raico puts it “the grandeur of empire.” This would be attractive to those who delight in state power and prestige, of course, but, Sumner notes, it comes with a price: “war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental system, pomp, glory, a big army and navy, lavish expenditures, political jobbery — in a word, imperialism.”

The Post-War Defeat of the Anti-Interventionist Classical Liberals

Needless to say, most modern day Americans—of both left and right—would consider these ideas of the nineteenth century liberals to be quaint.

The modern mindset, however, represents the triumph of the forces of militarism and anti-interventionism over the spirit of laissez-faire.

How and when did this happen? On the Left, the old spirit of peace and anti-intervention was destroyed first by Woodrow Wilson’s war efforts in the Great War. The final nail in the coffin came with the Roosevelt administration’s enthusiasm for war in both Asia and Europe.

On the Right, however, the end of liberal antiwar sentiment was more gradual. On the Right, the classical liberal impulse in favor of peace was destroyed by the rise of the conservative movement.

Murray Rothbard describes this process in The Betrayal of the American Right. Rothbard shows that while the so-called New Right contained the old anti-interventionist, free-market libertarian coalitions—the people most connected to historical classical liberalism—this was not the dominant faction. Rather, this New Right, in contrast to the Old Right, came to be dominated by an “increasingly powerful gaggle of ex-Communists and ex-leftists.” This new conservatism was premised primarily on red-baiting and building up state power to fight Communists (both real and imagined) at both home and abroad. This was all eventually confirmed and solidified by the rise of William F. Buckley, Jr. as the preeminent theorist of the so-called conservative movement. For Buckley—who called for totalitarianism in the name of waging the Cold War—laissez-faire was little more than a convenient and cynical bone to throw to the remnants of the old laissez-faire liberals in order to keep them within the political right wing.

This served to neutralize the laissez-faire movement during the Cold War, and this new ideology of conservatism served to divorce the old laissez-faire liberalism from its historical antiwar roots.

This shift can still be seen today in how the conservative movement, and its political arm, the Republican Party, has successfully grafted a patina of “freedom and free markets” onto what remains essentially a pro-government, militarist movement in favor of “spreading democracy” through a robust military establishment and surveillance state. Its origins are in the pro-government, militant anti-communism of the 1950s. This continues to be reflected in today’s conservative movement.

For decades, as ever more federal power was defended by this conservative coalition in the name of beating the communists. This same impulse then seamlessly transferred to the “global war on terror” and its new spy apparatus deployed against Americans in the wake of 9/11. Even today’s “MAGA” coalition, which is relatively less bad than the Bushian and Nixonian warmongering coalitions of the past, promises ever more military spending and even more federal surveillance in the name of “homeland security.” After all, a federal security and spy state is presumably necessary to round up people who write op-eds in support of Hamas or aliens who might get a job without the proper federal paperwork.

The Left, of course, has been lost almost entirely in this respect. What antiwar movement occasionally exists on the Left tends to completely disappear whenever there is a Democrat in the White House. Even worse, the Left now tries to beat the Right at its own game—the Left now routinely accuses its ideological enemies of being foreign agents to a degree that might even make Joseph McCarthy hesitate.

Among conservatives, however, there appears to be no corner of the globe which does not require US intervention. This attitude continues in spite of the fact that many “America First” advocates claim to be for a minimalist foreign policy. There is nothing minimalist, however, about continued intervention in both the Middle East and in Ukraine where the “America First” candidate has inked a new minerals deal that will keep the US government engaged there indefinitely. There is nothing “America First” about open-ended military aid to an Israeli state that never tires of efforts to draw the United States ever further into Israel’s regional wars. There is nothing “America First” about the Trump administration’s efforts to secure a trillion-dollar military budget and to keep funding an archipelago of hundreds of American military bases across Europe and Asia.

Of course, any true classical liberal—any true opponent of untrammeled state power—from Spencer to Jefferson to Cobden and to Bastiat—would denounce the standing army, the crippling military expense, and the de facto imperialism of endless global intervention. Were they here to do this, of course, they would likely be themselves denounced by conservatives, who would call the pioneers of laissez-faire “naïve pacifists” and perhaps even “traitors” for not embracing a strong American state.

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

The post The Classical Liberals Were Radical Opponents of War and Militarism appeared first on LewRockwell.

On May 4th, U.S. President Trump — about whom I had headlined on 4 December 2024, “Reuters reports Trump is set to continue Biden’s policies on Ukraine.” — told NBC News, that “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.”

Not only is that the exact opposite of what Russia is, in fact, deeply committed to — they’ve made clear, numerous times, that the five regions of the former Ukraine where voters in plebiscites have voted overwhelmingly to be Russians instead of Ukrainians will remain henceforth as being parts of Russia, and where they are being, and will forever be, provided with Russian Social Security and military protection, and all of the other rights of Russian citizens. But, ALSO, if Russia would reneg on those promises, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, would be overthrown by the Russian people, because his doing that would violate all of his repeated national-security commitments to the Russian people — such as that under NO circumstances would the nation — Ukraine — that has by far the nearest of all borders to The Kremlin (Russia’s Government), which is Ukraine, ever be allowed to join America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.

For example, RT News, which is their equivalent to Britain’s BBC or America’s PBS, closed an article on May 13th by saying “Putin has maintained that Ukraine must abandon its plans to join NATO and renounce its claims to Crimea and four other regions that voted in 2022 to join Russia.” Obviously, therefore, Trump is simply ignoring Russia’s national-security red lines by demanding “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.”

Trump is, indeed, committed to continuing Biden’s, and Trump’s, and Obama’s, war against Russia, in the battlefields of Ukraine, using Ukraine’s military, armed with U.S.-and-allied weapons and satellite intelligence, to conquer Russia. Anybody who had voted for Trump thinking otherwise, was merely fooled by his lies.

Previously, he had been committed to the Ukraine plan by his appointed Ukraine ‘peace’ negotiator, Keith Kellogg: 1. Ukraine’s membership in America’s anti-Russian military alliance NATO will be “delayed” (but will happen). 2. Russia will temporarily keep the five former regions of Ukraine that it now occupies, but Ukraine will continue to be their legal owner (and America will help Ukraine to get them back). 3. Sanctions against Russia will be partially lifted. 4. U.S. will continue arming Ukraine against Russia. 5. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks with Russia, the U.S. might discontinue weapons-supplies to Ukraine.

However, now, Trump has changed #2, and, “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine.” He is now reverting clearly to Biden’s full policy on Ukraine (which had simply continued Obama’s policy on Ukraine, ever since the war in Ukraine was started by Obama in 2014).

The reason why Trump is now committed to “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine,” is that, as I explained in my May 9th “The U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal is much more favorable to the U.S. than to Ukraine.”, I described there the ways, and the extent to which, Ukraine’s government sold-out to America’s aristocracy Ukraine’s minerals-wealth in order to get the U.S. Government fully again into the U.S.-and-allied coalition to conquer Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine. America’s billionaires will benefit significantly from controlling Ukraine’s minerals if Russia will be forced out of Ukraine; and, so, they will be even more determined than they had been before, to conquer Russia in Ukraine. Trump’s now hiking America’s commitment up from “2. Russia will temporarily keep the five former regions of Ukraine that it now occupies” to instead “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want” reflects Trump’s victory over the existing government of Ukraine, and this statement by him is a warning to Russia that America will now be even more determined to conquer Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine than it had been under Biden. This ALSO shows that Trump’s OTHER prior statements softening America’s war against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine — such as that America won’t send more troops into Ukraine — could likewise become no longer applicable.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Why Trump Now Says ‘Russia Will Have To Give Up All of Ukraine.’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: What’s your perspective on the claims Elon Musk and others made about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during the campaign, and how would you assess the actual progress they’ve achieved since then?

Doug Casey: I hate to sound pessimistic, because the idea of DOGE was excellent, but it’s not making much in the way of progress. Musk first thought he could cut $2 trillion from the budget. I see how he could say that; it’s a very reasonable estimate. But as he discovered the depth of the resistance, he reduced it to $1 trillion. And now it’s $150 billion—and he’s probably not even going to be able to do that.

Why is it failing? One reason is that Congress has legislated and mandated most of the spending, and the hundreds of agencies that carry it out—and Trump can’t eliminate them. Congress has to abolish these programs and agencies. All DOGE can do is make recommendations.

It’s true that the USAID building is closed, but apparently, many of its employees and programs have just simply been reassigned to the State Department or other places. They’ve made no progress on getting rid of the Department of Education.

I’m sure Trump very much wants to see DOGE be successful, but unfortunately its very name is “Government Efficiency,” and I question whether we really want the government to be more efficient. The only way to solve the problem isn’t by making government more efficient, but by abolishing agencies wholesale—not just trimming some fat.

Will there be a fundamental change? That’s unlikely because, as I’ve said many times before, Trump has no philosophical center. Nor any understanding of economics, as evidenced by his tariffs scheme, which I think will fail utterly—and may even be the catalyst that sets off the Greater Depression. He’s flying by the seat of his pants.

Equally bad—or worse—he appears to want an industrial policy for the US, where he’ll be making investments in all kinds of things to make the US a manufacturing center again. It’s like what Argentina did under the Peronists. He does whatever seems like a good idea at the time…

International Man: With Elon Musk signaling his impending departure from DOGE, how do you foresee the future of DOGE and its initiatives unfolding without his leadership?

Doug Casey: As Chairman Mao once said, “The helmsman sets the course that sails the ship.” And if the helmsman jumps ship, it’s questionable whether other crewmen can take over successfully. Maybe they will. But without the public profile and moral suasion of Musk, I suspect that the people he leaves in charge of this advisory agency will flounder.

And, remember, DOGE itself has no power. But the Deep State has an immense amount of power, and they’re fighting it tooth and nail—both with go-slow policies and by filing lawsuits everywhere possible to stop it from happening.

In the long run, just cutting things back can’t possibly work. It’s like pruning a plant. Gardeners prune plants to make them healthier. If you just prune agencies, they’ll grow back even more virulent. The only solution is for scores of them—hundreds of them—to be pulled out by the roots and Agent Orange sown where they grew. That’s not happening.

For instance, take Ukraine. Zelensky has become a billionaire, as have all his cronies, and the fighting is still going on. Why? Because the US is still sending them money and materiel.

I’m afraid serious cuts are bluster, not reality. And where can they really cut things? Are they going to take money away from the Veterans Administration or military pensions? No. Certainly not from the military itself—Trump has said they’re going to increase spending from $800 billion to $1 trillion. Are they going to cut back Medicare or Social Security? Abolish Medicaid? They should, but they won’t. These things, along with interest on the national debt, equal about 85% of spending.

They can’t reduce the interest burden on the federal debt; it will continue growing with more spending and higher interest rates. Which, I suspect, are headed toward the levels we saw in the early 1980s, when the government was paying 20% for its money.

Musk has said he’s found thousands of egregious cases of waste, fraud, and abuse that should be referred to the Department of Justice. But that’s far, far more than the DOJ can handle. Where are the headlines about prosecutions for the things Musk has talked about? I’m quite disappointed. I’d like to see hundreds of heads on stakes, but it looks like the bedbugs and cockroaches are just going to hide while the lights are on.

International Man: Do you believe DOGE’s proposed cuts will lead to genuine, permanent reductions in government spending—or will they simply free up funds for Washington to redirect toward areas like defense?

Doug Casey: All kinds of obvious things aren’t being touched—like the $50 billion the US gives to foreign governments around the world, a bottomless pit of graft. That’s not going to change. Certainly not the $4 billion the US gives to Israel every year, or the $4 billion it gives to Egypt every year to bribe it into being Israel’s BFF.

One thing that will kill any real progress from DOGE is subtle threats from the Deep State in general, and the praetorian agencies in particular. The NSA knows everything about everybody. If any DOGE employee gets too aggressive about breaking rice bowls or imprisoning bigwigs, they’ll be intimidated. These agencies know, or can fabricate, inconvenient things about them.

Or perform a cover up. Look at the Epstein case. We were supposed to learn what Epstein was up to, and with who. But everything’s being heavily redacted to protect guilty but well-connected people. The elite always close ranks to protect each other.

It’s all smoke but no fire. These agencies—with all the information they have—can destroy anyone who attacks them. If not now, while Trump is still in office, they’ll certainly seek retribution after he leaves. Our best hope—but it’s a long shot—is that Trump will realize that it’s kill or be killed, and will try to destroy them utterly while he’s still in power. That would be inviting civil war… but he has no real alternative.

International Man: Given that DOGE represents the most significant attempt to reduce government spending in generations, what are the implications if it fails?

Doug Casey: The economy is on the ragged edge, and with the tariffs creating economic chaos the Democrats may be re-elected in 2028. In fact, they may even win the midterms, which would guarantee that all of Trump’s efforts fail.

If the Democrats regain control of the government, they’ll redouble spending to try to forestall the Greater Depression and kick the can down the road for a few more years. And they’ll be supported by the American people, who are going to miss all the freebies the government was bribing them with. The average American has become so corrupt that he doesn’t want to have his doggy dish taken away.

For a while, during the first month of Trump’s presidency, it looked like it was going to once again be morning in America. But we’re finding out that morning only lasts six hours—and we’re already past noon. Things look quite grim.

International Man: As the US debt crisis intensifies, what steps should individuals take to protect their wealth—and what speculative opportunities do you see emerging from this turmoil?

Doug Casey: Even if we avoid a major war, I’m afraid the trend that’s been in motion for many decades is going to stay in motion and continue accelerating until the whole mess collapses under its own weight.

The US has become a giant multicultural empire revolving around the Washington Beltway. It could go down catastrophically the way Rome did. Or it may just degrade slowly like Spain or England. They still exist, but they’re hollow shells of their previous selves.

The financial, economic, political, and social problems we’re laboring under are leading to a breakup of the country. So, instead of the US getting bigger with the extremely expensive acquisitions of Greenland, the Panama Canal Zone, and—God forbid—Canada, the US is more likely to get smaller.

All you can do is try to insulate yourself. The way to do that is by diversifying your money safely out of the country and continuing to build significant positions in gold, silver, and Bitcoin. With hopefully some successful speculations along the way.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post DOGE, Deficits, and the Coming Financial Earthquake appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives approved yet again legislation (this time H. Res. 352) to counter “antisemitism” — something the US government has been redefining for its purposes as going beyond being related to race, ethnicity, or religion so that it also includes criticizing the government of Israel. In its concluding section the resolution states, in addition to a couple other demands, that the House “calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and counter all acts of antisemitism.”

Here the desire is to cling deceptively to the designation of “antisemitism” that has significant weight because it is still commonly understood as not including criticizing the government of Israel. The expanded meaning “antisemitism” label can then be used as a tool to try to suppress growing distaste among Americans for Israel government actions undertaken with the enthusiastic and critical aid of the US government, including congressional leadership that is all in on supporting the Israel government.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) cast the sole “no” vote on H. Res. 352.

I want here to zero in on one of the supporting arguments made in the resolution. “Whereas, according to the American Jewish Committee, almost 70 percent of Jewish adults report experiencing antisemitism online, including on social media,” the resolution proclaims. Looking to the mentioned source, you can see that in answer to the question “Over the past 12 months, have you seen or heard any antisemitic content, such as comments, posts, or videos, online or on social media?” seven percent of a poll’s respondents said “yes, one time” and 60 percent said “yes, more than one time,” while 33 percent said “no.”

Big whoop. Sure, many people who look at least somewhat often and somewhat widely through the internet would answer “yes, more than one time” to the question no matter if “antisemitism” means what it is commonly understood to mean or has the meaning under the US government pushed definition. The catch is many people would have good reason to give the same answer if content “anti” a long list of alternative races, ethnicities, religions, and governments were asked about instead of “antisemitism.” Welcome to the internet where plentiful negative comments are available for viewing. Thin-skinned people may be wise to tread with caution.

Reprinted with permission from The Ron Paul Institute.

The post A Peculiar Measure of the Prevalence of ‘Antisemitism’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iván Archivaldo Guzmán recently evaded capture by Mexican police by using escape tactics that he learned from his father Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. The Journal described Iván as “Mexico’s Most Wanted Drug Kingpin.”

But wait a minute! I thought that when U.S. officials recently sentenced El Chapo himself to life in a U.S. prison, the war on drugs was supposed to have been won. Alas, apparently not. It turns out that El Chapo has several sons who took over the family drug business.

Darn! And here I thought that the drug war was finally over. Who would have thought that the busting of one big drug lord only means that new drug lords are there to take their place? Gosh, so does that mean that if officials capture or kill all the Chapitos, the drug war will finally be over? If you believe that, I’ve got a nice bridge across the Rio Grande I’d like to sell you.

President Trump knows that the drug war is a long way from being over, no matter how many Chapitos are killed or captured. Trump now wants to use military force against drug cartels inside Mexico. He says the drug dealers are more than drug dealers. He says there are also “terrorists.” So, he wants to kill them by dropping U.S. bombs on them, firing missiles at them, or using U.S. troops to shoot them — inside Mexico. Trump obviously feels that by winning the war on drugs in Mexico, he will be winning the war on drugs here at home.

Unfortunately for Trump, however, when he asked Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum for permission to use U.S. military force inside Mexico, she said no. That must have undoubtedly surprised Trump, given that he has been praising her for several months and even cut her some slack on his tariff campaign. In fact, Trump was so miffed over Sheinbaum’s rejection of his request that he responded by suggesting that she was just scared of the drug cartels.

However, it’s not difficult to understand why Sheinbaum has rejected Trump’s request.

For one thing, Trump’s request is a variation of “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you.” Who believes that one? Not anyone in Mexico, including Sheinbaum.

Another thing to consider is that if U.S. troops enter Mexico ostensibly to combat the drug cartels, there is a good possibility that they will never leave. After all, aren’t there still U.S. troops in Iraq? Indeed, aren’t there post-World War II troops still in Germany? Why would Mexico want a permanent occupation by the U.S. national-security establishment? Would Americans want a permanent occupation of the United States by the Mexican army?

A third thing to consider is that the U.S. government hasn’t exactly done a great job in smashing its own illicit drug distributors here inside the United States. After all, if it had done so, U.S. officials could have declared victory and an end to the drug war. Instead, implicitly acknowledging defeat domestically, they now feel that they need to go into Mexico to win the drug war over there. One can understand why Mexico would question the competence of U.S. officials to win the war on drugs in Mexico when it can’t even win the war on drugs inside the United States.

Something else to consider is all of the innocent people who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against Mexican drug cartels. Remember: U.S. officials don’t exactly put a high value on the lives of Mexicans. After all, isn’t that one of the countries that U.S. officials say is filled with rapists, murderers, thieves, and robbers who are invading the United States? Given such, I can’t imagine that U.S. officials are going to be very upset about the large number of Mexican citizens who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against the drug cartels.

Finally, based on what happened in the Mexican War, one can understand why Sheinbaum and the Mexican people would be a bit skittish about permitting a U.S. invasion of their country. When the U.S. government provoked that war, U.S. officials used the war to steal the entire northern half of Mexico. Who’s to say that the U.S. government wouldn’t do the same thing today — after forcing all Mexican citizens to move south, of course, to avoid having them become U.S. citizens.

As President Trump has pointed out, Sheinbaum is a very sharp person. She is smart to say no to Trump’s request to invade and bomb her country in the name of winning the ongoing, never-ending, perpetual immoral and destructive war on drugs.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Will Trump Invade or Bomb Mexico to Win the Drug War? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Favoring capital over wage earners is the long-established policy of both political parties.

Cribbing a line from a Grateful Dead song (“ain’t it a shame”) seems appropriate when discussing the prospects of America’s burgeoning Precariat Class who are increasingly depending on tips, side hustles, credit cards and buy now, pay later schemes to survive in a stupidly high-cost economy where all the media-hyped “GDP growth” benefits the few at the top, a fact well-documented here courtesy of FRED-Federal Reserve charts.

Living on Meds, Vitamin C and Ibogaine is not a high quality of life, and the only thing that has any real meaning is the quality of life of the majority of the citizenry, particularly the bottom 60% who own the fewest income-producing assets (i.e. capital).

If the quality of life of the majority is tanking, all the glowing economic statistics in the world are nothing but the self-serving bleating of financial toadies, apparatchiks and sycophants who are part of the problem, not the solution, as all the statistics they tout are misdirections.

My focus on the quality of life of America’s Precariats is rooted in my own experiences as a Precariat. Construction is notoriously boom and bust, and when work dries up, precarity is the order of the day. In the brutal 1973-74 recession, work dried up and I emptied my boyhood piggy bank to buy a few gallons of gas.

In the brutal recession of 1980-82, I was down to around $100 cash, which in today’s money is equivalent to about $25.

Small business owners face a particularly intense level of precarity due to their responsibilities for employees and high fixed costs. When work finally picked up in 1983, cash flow didn’t, as banks only release construction loan payments after the work has been done, so my partner and I had to take cash advances on our own credit cards to make payroll for our crews. We couldn’t afford to pay ourselves so we lived on fumes until the cash flow increased–often a couple of months.

This is common in the world of small businesses: after paying your crew, there’s nothing left for you.

The reality is even outwardly successful small businesses are going broke and the owners are burning out. Expenses are increasing in leaps and bounds, but there’s only so much you can charge customers. So small business owners sacrifice themselves to try to make it work–something that is increasingly impossible.

‘Doesn’t make financial sense’: Michelin-starred SF restaurant calls it quits. “Even with the busiest the restaurant’s ever been, it just doesn’t make financial sense,” Stowaway said. “We’ve done a lot of great things and we’re proud, but the financial instability starts to affect everyone, and you have to make big changes.”

Free-lance writing has always been poorly paid, and being paid $150 or $250 for an article was typical in the go-go 1990s. I was so far below “poverty level” (generally considered 80% of median income in one’s region) in the high-cost, high-income San Francisco Bay Area that to me a “poverty level” income was like a king’s ransom.

We hear that high-paying jobs are stressful. Yes, they are, but precarity is stressful without the reward of ample compensation. Most people working for a living are stressed out, and so anti-anxiety / anti-depression meds, pain-killers, etc., are part of the self-medication menu, along with supplements (Vitamin C, etc.). But no med or supplement can fix what’s actually broken–our economy and society.

Ibogaine makes the list because it’s being studied as a treatment for PTSD / traumatic experiences, addiction and severe depression. These have a high correlation with precarity, for those with these conditions have a difficult time escaping precarity, and precarity is itself a low-level trauma that few economic cheerleaders acknowledge.

Ibogaine Inspires New Treatments for Addiction and Depression: Targeted Molecules Are More Powerful Than SSRI Antidepressants and Avoid Dangerous Side Effects.

What to Know About Ibogaine: Some researchers hope the drug, still illegal in the United States, may be considered as a treatment for addiction, PTSD and brain injuries.

Read the Whole Article

The post Living on Meds, Vitamin C and Ibogaine: American Precarity appeared first on LewRockwell.

While waiting with a friend on the southbound platform at the crowded junction of Medellin, Colombia’s two Metro elevated train lines in February 2017, a short, bespectacled, wavy-black-haired, thirtyish man approached me and asked, in Spanish, where I was from.

I answered, “Los Estados Unidos.”

He replied, “Gracias para derrotar Alemania en la segunda guerra mundial” and walked away, smirking.

I can say most of what I want to say in Spanish and understand most of what natives say to me. But after Japanese, Spanish is the world’s second fastest spoken language. Sometimes, as on that occasion, I don’t immediately comprehend what Spanish speakers say.

Thus, it took me about five seconds to figure out that the Colombian had said, completely out of context, “Thanks for defeating the Germans in World War II.”

I chuckled. Incongruity amuses me. I told my non-Spanish-speaking-friend what the man had said. My friend also thought it was funny.

Many a truth is said in jest. But some people who aren’t joking still love America for something it did eighty years ago. No thanks to me.

And of course, even given the passage of time, the death of young soldiers is the opposite of funny.

—

I haven’t been to Europe in 38 years. For reasons I mentioned a few weeks ago, I prefer to travel in the US and Latin America. I appreciate that Europe has countless elegant, old buildings. Some book I read, perhaps William Manchester’s A World Lit Only by Fire, accurately described Europe as a 500-year art, architecture and historic preservation project. Needs more trees though.

Rick Steves is known for his European guidebooks and hundred-plus episode public TV series portraying Euro destinations. Steves is a cultural archetype: an affluent, androgynous Caucasian from Seattle who spouts progressive platitudes and complains about climate change as he jets around the world and encourages others to do the same.

Home alone tonight, I switched on the TV. PBS showed a new, uncharacteristically dark Rick Steves installment entitled “Fascism in Europe.”

During a pledge break, Steves explained that he produced this episode because, while his travelogues routinely portray Europe as a chill and “progressive” smorgasbord of wine, baguettes and cheese, chill cafes, pubs and plazas, art museums, castles and cathedrals and punctual trains and oompah bands—my summary, not his—between 1930-45 fascism took hold in Italy and Germany and Spain. Steves said he wanted to acknowledge and preserve the memory of that grim period.

As he retraced those years, he solemnly enumerated the strategies and actions of these nations’ oppressive governments. As he did, I couldn’t help but notice that even though the 1930-45 regimes in those three nations killed more people—at least until the Covid lockdown and vaxx effects have fully manifested themselves—American, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and European governments applied similar social control tactics during the Covid response.

Per Steves, in both periods, governments began by inciting fear to manipulate their citizens. Just as fascists fanned fears that Soviet Communism would spread to Germany, Italy and Spain, during Coronamania American, European and Oceanian officials incited terror about a virus that they said would ravage their nations. They convinced the populace that governors and the governed had to pull out all stops to crush a microbial invasion.

Both frenzied periods were driven by cults of personality. People believed that visionaries would rescue them. Europe had Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. Coronamania was driven by Fauci, Birx and Collins. The hype surrounding these evil individuals fueled fandom and fanaticism.

Officials from each era relied on a central lie. Italians, German and Spanish fascists convinced many citizens that they were part of a superior race and culture. Covid Era officials sold the lie that a respiratory virus threatened people of all ages but that enlightened people could defeat this scourge by “Following The Science.”

Relatedly, during both periods, officials scapegoated specific groups for ruining life for everyone else. During fascist years, Jews, Slavs, communists and others were blamed for the poverty and malaise that gripped Europe following World War I. During Coronamania, the division was based more on socioeconomic status, political affiliation and Covid-measure compliance than on ethnicity. Laptoppers and vacation homeowners skipped their commutes while vilifying MAGA “superspreaders” who refused to stay home, wear masks and inject mRNA.

European fascists curtailed individual identity and civil liberties. They urged national unity with discipline. Everything was purportedly done on behalf of the collective, embodied by The State. During Coronamania, Western governments promoted, and many people fervently internalized, the same collective, restrictive ethos. Since we were said to be “all in this together,” those who questioned any government-imposed restriction or demand for sacrifice were angrily labeled “reckless” and “selfish.” They were deemed Enemies of the State.

In both eras, officials defied constitutions and democratic principles and invoked Emergency Authority. They peremptorily, opportunistically and dishonestly asserted that they needed to suspend basic rights in order to protect peoples’ security. The masses bought in.

Steves notes that fascism was implemented incrementally. Similarly, the Covid response began with “two weeks to stop the spread.” Following the fascist playbook, when the shots were introduced, 2020-2021 American officials assured the public that these wouldn’t be mandated. These, and other, pledges were soon abandoned and more extreme measures were implemented.

During both the period spanning 1930-45 and 2020-2025, the State relied on media control, propaganda and suppression of dissent. Fascist rallies and radio broadcasts resembled Covid Era government briefings and TV ad blitzes. Fascist censorship, including book-burning, resembled Covid Era-captured news outlets and internet deplatforming and shadow-banning. Those who dared to question the human cost of the lockdowns, school closures, masks and tests were subjected to government-directed “devastating takedowns” in order to quash open discussion of the badly overblown Covid risk and the extreme and foolish government interventions.

Overt coercion occurred in both periods. The Europeans had secret police who raided and abducted civilians. Coronamanic police made examples of the non-compliant by chasing, tackling, handcuffing or fining those who didn’t stay home or mask. Covid shot decliners were fired on a mass scale. Concentration camps were big in fascist Europe. These were proposed in the US during Coronamania, but not built. Instead, viral house-arrest and hotel quarantines were common here and abroad.

Both fascism and the Covid response were economically disastrous. In 1930-45 Europe and during Coronamania, governments spent prodigious sums of borrowed or printed money to implement their strategies and subsidize cronies, saddling the general public with mountains of intergenerationally impoverishing debt. I suspect that, despite a net worth exceeding $20 million, Steves got PPP money when lockdowns disrupted travel and show filming.

Read the Whole Article

The post Rick Steves, the Fascist Playbook and the Covid Response appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a recent post on her Substack newsletter, Sarah Cain made a statement that, although predictable and already common in such difficult times, always gives us pause for thought: “Pope Francis was the biggest impediment to my conversion. I know that I’m not alone in that.”

Clearly, Cain is not the only one who has had to overcome such a difficulty. Terrible problems and doubts have confronted all those converts to Catholicism who, like myself, embraced—out of ignorance or excessive enthusiasm—a hyper-papalist interpretation of Pastor Aeternus, the famous dogmatic constitution from the First Vatican Council. Without a doubt, this type of purification of our Faith is one of the most painful imaginable.

Putting aside for now the discussions about “good popes/bad popes” and all the consequences of disastrous pontificates (especially when, at least through ambiguity, our faith is put at risk), many of those who have found themselves facing the walls of hyper-papalist Jericho still believe in the authority of the hierarchical structure of the Church as ordained by God and in the necessity of the papal office.

Unfortunately, there are also many Catholics who have not passed the test. If I mention only the names Rod Dreher and Michael Warren Davis, I am sure you will immediately understand whom I am referring to. These are all those who, scandalized by the ambiguity of the pontificate that has just ended, not only left the Catholic Church but went so far as to deny the very existence of the papal office.

It is tragic that such former Catholic thinkers and authors claim to be “orthodox” while denying a teaching—the dogma of infallibility—which is a Truth of faith confessed by saints like Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and Theodore the Studite. A careful reading of the section titled “La Monarchie Ecclésiastique fondée par Jésus-Christ” (“The Ecclesiastical Monarchy Founded by Jesus Christ”) from Vladimir Solovyov’s work La Russie et l’Église Universelle (Russia and the Universal Church) might help them discover some of those testimonies of the Holy Fathers—Greek and Latin—who recognized both the primacy and the infallibility of the Apostle Peter and his successors.

In any case, I hasten to add that the denial of the pope’s infallibility on the part of the “orthodox” does not stop there. In the end, it leads to the rejection of the very existence of the papal office. It is as if an “orthodox” scandalized by the sins of a certain metropolitan or bishop were not only to criticize that particular hierarch but to deny the very function itself. He might do so directly, but more often—and this is usually what happens—he does it indirectly, by denying the main prerogatives of the office.

The Protestants took things to the extreme: they denied any form of sacramental hierarchy in the name of the “universal priesthood” of all the baptized. Naturally, such an attitude—especially from those of our brethren who have left the Church—cannot leave us indifferent.

It is true that my special sensitivity to this subject stems from the fact that I converted to Catholicism precisely because I discovered (thanks to the brilliant Russian philosopher—himself a convert to Catholicism—Vladimir Solovyov) that there is no Church without the pope. Yes, the Holy Father is the visible head of the Church, the “reflection” of its absolute and invisible Head, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

In other words, the Christian faith that is truly orthodox also has an ecclesiological dimension: the belief in the hierarchy instituted by our Savior Christ, which includes, as the visible head of the Church and “servus servorum Dei,” the Supreme Pontiff. My Ancient Greek professor, passionate about Christian sacred symbolism and translator of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, taught us that the hierarchy existing in the Kingdom of Heaven—whose head is God Himself—is mirrored by the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Militant Church—whose visible head is the pope.

Despite the debatable pontificates of recent decades, not for one moment has this conviction of mine wavered. Today, in such troubled times, we must work more than ever to strengthen this faith. Of course, we should not do this in the hyper-papalist spirit so well captured in an anecdote told by the historian of religion at the University of Chicago, Mircea Eliade.

He heard a meaningful joke from a Jesuit priest and noted it in his journal. It is said that a cardinal, speaking enthusiastically about conversion to Catholicism and the essential condition for recognizing and validating such a decision, asked rhetorically and casually: “Does he believe in the Pope? Yes? Then it’s good. He is a true convert. If he believes in the Pope, that’s enough! Who cares if he believes in God or not?”

Although it is just a joke, it clearly contains a jab aimed at the convictions—so widespread in our times—of those Catholics who regard the pope as a kind of superman or oracle who can never be wrong under any circumstance, whether speaking ex cathedra or merely expressing a personal opinion. Let us remember it only as a joke.

Read the Whole Article

The post Yes, the Visible Head of the Church Is the Pope—This Is Our Christian Faith appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the 1988 campaign, George W. Bush came to the Courthouse in Maryville, TN to speak at a rally for his Dad. As we were leaving, I told my friend and later Chief of Staff, Bob Griffitts, “Bob, he is better than his Dad.”

When he ran for President in 2000, then Governor Bush went all over the Country saying we needed a more humble foreign policy, and according to Foreign Policy Magazine, he “famously campaigned against nation building.”

The Independent Institute reported that in a 2000 debate, candidate Bush said “If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us; but if we are a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”

Wikipedia says Bush criticized President Clinton as being too interventionist and said: “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem down the road, and I’m going to prevent that.”

Because of statements like these, along with my favorable impression from 1988, and my strong opposition to Vice President Gore, I became enthused about the Bush campaign.

During all of my 15 campaigns for Congress, I held a Duncan Family Barbecue with 6,000 to 8,000 in attendance. I was very pleased when Gov. Bush rearranged his schedule just a few days before the election on very short notice to also attend.

We marched into the Knoxville Coliseum behind the University of Tennessee Pep Band, and he stood in the receiving line much longer than I expected. When I walked him back to his limousine, I said “Governor, you’re going to carry Tennessee.” He replied “If I do, I’ll win the  election,” and that is exactly what happened.

That night, my son, Zane, said “Dad, I have never heard you so excited as when you shouted ‘the next President of the United States, George Bush!”

I had been a Pat Buchanan-American Firster all through the 90s, so you can imagine my disappointment when President Bush allowed himself and, more importantly, his foreign policy to be controlled by Neocons.

Of course, in spite of being put into a little secure room at the White House with Condoleeza Rice and the top two leaders of the CIA so they could put pressure on me, I shocked my district and voted against going to war in Iraq.

And then, over the next many years, Reps. Ron Paul and Walter Jones and I were the only Republicans in the U.S. House who consistently and repeatedly spoke and voted to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan many years before we did.

Then, after Sen. Rand Paul decided not to run for President in 2016, I became one of the first members of Congress to endorse Donald Trump for President. I did this because I thought he was the least hawkish of all who were running for the Republican nomination, and he had made some critical comments about the decision to go to war in Iraq.

But I was disappointed once again when he put Neocons like John Bolton and others into key positions in his Administration, appointments I think he later regretted.

With this history and background, you may think I am very foolish, but my hopes are up once again because of President Trump’s Inaugural Address and even more so because of his speech in Riyadh on Tuesday.

In his Inaugural Address, he said: “We will measure our success not only by little battles we win, but also by the wars that end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

Then I was ecstatic when I heard what he had said in his speech in Riyadh: “But in the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

“No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation builders’, Neocons or liberal non-profits, like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Baghdad and so many other cities.”

He added: “The birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves—the people that are right here, the people who have lived here all their lives, developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions and charting your destinies in your own way.”

Trump also said what he called the “great transformation” of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East “has not come from western interventionists…giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.” These are words Ron Paul himself could have said.

This speech, along with numerous reports that Trump is tired of being manipulated by Netanyahu, his ending sanctions against Syria, entering negotiations with Iran, stopping the bombing of Yemen, and leaving Israel off his Middle East trip, all give hope for a different and perhaps more diplomatic, less hawkish U.S. foreign policy.

When you add to all these hopeful signs from Trump the May 9th column by Thomas Friedman entitled “This Israeli Government Is Not Our Ally”, change may be in the air.

Friedman wrote that “Netanyahu is not our friend” and added: “On the Middle East, you have some good independent instincts, Mr. President. Follow them.” This may be one of the very few times I have ever agreed with one of the longest-serving employees of the New York Times.

Now, I just wish there were a few more in Congress with the courage of Thomas Massie.

The post Can Trump Slip the Grip of the Neocons? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Dave Smith: Debating Douglas Murray, the ‘Woke Right’ Narrative, and the Moment He Found God appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tucker Carlson – Warren Commission Stooge and Deep State Shill

The post Tucker Carlson’s “Evolving” Views on Lee Harvey Oswald and Who Murdered JFK appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Watch on YouTube

The post Why You Wouldn’t Last 24 Hours in Medieval Times appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Hill

The post Haley furious that American officials can be bought by Qatar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Newsweek is hardly a “ right wing” publication, but if you watch the MSM, Black South Africans are the victims.

Because Trump is a White Supremacist.

Newsweek

The post A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Writes Gail Appel:

This IS real!

News.com.au

The post South Africa farm murders: Jacob Zuma calls for white land to be confiscated appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes, Andreatta G.:

Lew,

The state of Colorado shamefully is harassing and threatening the license of the 77-year-old Christian camp called “Id-Ra-Ha-Je” (short for, “I’d Rather Have Jesus”), over the bathroom issue. “The government has no place telling religious summer camps that it’s ‘lights out’ for upholding their religious beliefs about human sexuality,” says the camp’s legal counsel.

I cannot even express how disappointed I am that this abomination is happening in the territory formerly known as the Wild West.

The post “I’d Rather Have Trans” summer camp? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The post Watch “Investigating civilian deaths by US-made bombs in Lebanon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.  

See here.

The post Another Report on Israel’s Genocide. More Silence & Complicity From The Liberal West appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

The post Holes in the Constitution appeared first on LewRockwell.