Aggregatore di feed

Translation is a tricky thing, especially if you’re translating a word that has a seemingly direct equivalent in English. Sometimes the equivalent translation fits, sometimes it doesn’t. Often, it’s a mixed bag. That brings me to the Third Person of the Trinity.

I don’t know when and why the Latin phrase Sanctus Spiritus switched from being translated as “Holy Ghost” to “Holy Spirit.” I can understand the translation of “spirit.” You can see it in the word spiritus, and it is sensible to modern ears whereas “ghost” seems almost Gothic. “Spirit” also covers another meaning of spiritus which is “breath,” and it has that elusive quality of wind, water, cloud, and fire, which are symbolic of the Third Person. I wonder, though, if we have lost something in abandoning the word “ghost.”

Those very reasons which make “spirit” an acceptable translation also make it a problematic one. For one, especially to modern minds, it has a connotation of emotion and feeling, almost whimsy. Is it a coincidence that the shift from “ghost” to “spirit” came at a time when our culture shifted our responses to situations from the head to the belly (or farther below) where the emotions hold sway?

A ghost, on the other hand, is definitely a person—someone who speaks to you, commands you. Ghosts are out of fashion now, but they were once part of our culture. I, for one, enjoy ghost stories of the old-fashioned kind. (And, as an aside, if you aren’t doing anything next October, before Halloween, read the ghost stories of Russell Kirk. They will show you what ghosts are really like.)

A ghost haunts, that is, inhabits a place, and the word “guest” is related to “ghost.” He annoys us, besets us, hounds us. His message may be consoling or convicting, but a person is telling you to do something and He won’t let you rest until it is done. Seek to evade him as we will, the Ghost is there. The Holy Ghost, as the guest of our soul, haunts us, as our conscience does—or should do if we haven’t deadened it with screens, entertainment, drugs, sex, and “news.” This is why we invoke the Holy Ghost when we examine our conscience.

A guest can make us uncomfortable. We must ask Him in, make room for Him, and talk to Him. We have to be on our best behavior. It’s a difficult thing to do for a culture bent on distraction and wanting to do its own thing. Perhaps the ghosts we are most familiar with are the three in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. They came to remind Scrooge of his past, what was really happening in his present, and where he may end up in his future.

A ghost in old stories came to right wrongs, to reveal hidden things that needed correction, to see justice done. He won’t “let sleeping dogs lie,” as we want to do with our sins that “didn’t hurt anyone” or that are so far in our past that they “don’t matter anymore.” A ghost wants the truth revealed and accounted for, no matter who knows or how far in the past—those secrets we hide even from ourselves; those things we would like to forget or overlook; those “skeletons in the closet” (another sobering image) that are the very things we need to confess.

A ghost illuminates our minds to the truth of the present. Nothing is hidden from him; there are no secrets from him. Nothing is private. He sees all; knows all. He shows us the reality of a situation instead of the charade we often make it to be, as Banquo’s ghost did to Macbeth when he came to crash the dinner party.

A ghost, because he is from beyond the grave, reminds us of death—a morbid thought, perhaps, but a salutary one. He knows what is beyond the grave, which is why ghosts often seem to pop up in graveyards. He shows us, as he did Scrooge, what could happen when we die should our course not be altered. It brings to mind those portraits of the saints sitting with skulls on their desks showing us the fleetingness of this life. This is something good for an age that is frightened of death and avoids the inevitability of it either by relentlessly pretending to be young or trying to have it on its own terms. A ghost reminds us that death is never on our terms, for our life was never our own to begin with.

A ghost does not come, pace charismatics, amid fervent bouts of singing and Sister Act hand waving—but in silence. In those moments when we are alone, at the beginning or the end of the day. That soft whisper, that uneasy feeling that something, or someone, is there. He is numinous with that sense of awe you get during a thunderstorm, or when at the foot of the Rockies, or on the edge of the Grand Canyon, or when you stand on the beach and see the sun rise over the ocean. You are small. You are not in control. You don’t know everything.

A ghost, like an angel, reminds you that there is another world out there—a world that is larger and more real than the one on your iPhone, at work, or in your head. You must reckon with it, for it is the Truth.

If these reflections are too melancholy, remember that a ghost can also protect and bring comfort and security, as in the delightful story (and even more delightful movie) The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. Those little nudges we get—“don’t go there,” or “stay away from that person,” or “don’t click on that”—can be the Holy Ghost seeking to guard us. And ghosts don’t always reveal gloomy things, they often tell where hidden treasure is buried, as happens in The Ghost of Dibble Hollow. The Holy Ghost has many riches He wants to lead us to.

In the new liturgical calendar, we mark the weeks after Pentecost as “ordinary time” instead of weeks after Pentecost. Can there be such a thing as “ordinary time” after the Third Person of the Trinity has come to dwell in our souls? Time itself is a sacred thing. Each moment is haunted with fear and trembling, delight and wonder. We cannot waste a moment.

Our Lady is the spouse of the Third Person. A spouse, like a ghost, is a person. A spouse is the one you give your life to and are most intimate with. We imitate Our Lady when we give our lives to the Holy Ghost and become intimate with Him. Your spouse knows the truth about you—all your faults and foibles; your spouse inspires you and calls you to account. Feelings and emotions become subservient to the Truth because of love. When we are wedded to the Holy Ghost, He does the same.

So, while the Holy Spirit is a good translation, it may also be well to call upon Him as the Holy Ghost and allow Him to haunt us, to bring to mind all we have done or failed to do. We can ask Him to come into our lives as a guest and stir us up and tell us what to do now. Let Him disclose his wealth, which He will do if we are silent and listen. And, before it is too late, permit Him to remind us of our death and the accounting we must make of this sacred time we call life.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Whatever Happened to the Holy Ghost? appeared first on LewRockwell.

And pretty soon, expect action in a dozen other states, you can be sure, because just as it was in the scorpion’s nature to sting the frog crossing the river in the old parable, it is likewise in the Party of Chaos’s nature to sow chaos in an American summer.

The operation to cue riots over the removal of illegal immigrants has been well-planned in advance. Chief lawfare artists Norm Eisen and Mary McCord have engineered the legal strategy to oppose enforcement of US immigration law. They will clog the courts with lawsuits to prevent it and enlist their allied federal judges to issue injunction after injunction paralyzing the deportation process. They will work day and night to get their violent street cadres out of jail, just as they did in the 2020 George Floyd riots, so that these mutts can go back into the streets to loot and burn some more.

It is, of course, the most cynical operation imaginable. The Democratic Party hustled XX-millions of border-jumpers into the country under the authority of their phantom president, “Joe Biden” for one purpose: to flood the swing election precincts with enough new voters to keep the Party of Chaos in power permanently. Now that the illegals are here, the party will do anything it can to foil their removal. All the hand-wringing and crocodile tears over “fearful families and communities” is just stage-business to dress-up the CNN videos.

The ultimate goal of this operation is to goad President Trump into declaring some kind of national emergency to put down the violence, and the objective of that is to point at him and holler, “Behold the fascist tyrant!” That’s the game. The catch is, the Democrats are mistaken in thinking they can replay the George Floyd hustle.

This time around, more than 70-percent of the American public is not-insane. They are not fooled by the term “undocumented” — as if some mysterious clerical error was made by the federal bureaucracy in processing these millions. The actual error was allowing them to stroll freely across the border in the first place, with massive assistance from NGOs that provided smart phones loaded with helpful apps, plus free plane and bus tickets, plus freshly-minted debit cards for walking-around-money, plus posh hotel reservations.

You can blame former Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas — since “Joe Biden” was demonstrably non compos mentis during his term in office — for what was a patently treasonous act. How is it possible that Mr. Mayorkas remains unindicted? By the way, before he was sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security, he was a board member of one of the most aggressive NGOs actively assisting the recent massive wave of illegal immigrants: the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). The org, founded in 1881 under very different circumstances, has been enlisted to serve the Democratic Party’s program for flooding the voter rolls — just as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center have been transformed into attack dogs against the Democratic Party’s political opponents.

So, you watch now as the streets of Los Angeles fill with violent mobs waving Mexican and Palestinian flags burn cars, fling missiles and fireworks at police, and interfere with the deportation process of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. They are coming close to presenting themselves as a foreign enemy army and, as such, would invite a response from the defending US military.

It has the odor, at least, of insurrection, while Democratic Party politicians pretend that this is all just “peaceful protest.” LA Mayor Karen Bass skates at the edge of sedition as she orders her city’s law officers to “not cooperate” with federal authorities who seek to find-and-deport illegal immigrants. In her youth as a leftist activist, Ms. Bass joined the Cuba-sponsored Venceremos Brigade. She traveled to Cuba eight times in the 1970s for training in regime change operations. (She claims it was only to do “humanitarian work.”) Ms. Bass is also alleged to have been affiliated in the 1980s with the Oakland-based Maoist organization Line of March.

California Governor Gavin Newsom appears to be just recklessly grandstanding, looking for a kayfabe fight with Donald Trump as he primps for his party’s 2028 nomination. You have to wonder whether the citizens of California — that is, documented citizens with bona fide US birth certificates — have noticed how Governor Newsom managed to wreck the state during his terms-in-office (and before that, as Mayor of San Francisco). By now, even the steadfast, Woked-up Democratic voters of Pacific Palisades must be a little bit suspicious that Governor Newsom does not really have their best interests at heart as he blusters at the president.

There’s another angle on the current violence, you understand. As the old song goes, Summer’s here / and the time is right / for dancing in the streets. Or fighting in the streets, as the Rolling Stones famously updated the idea in December 1968 — after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in August that year. Street fighting is one of the capital amusements of the sore-beset Gen Z, stuck with unpayable college loans, faced with a daunting job market, reduced to living in Mom’s basement, addled with sexual bamboozlement, and jacked-up on prescription drugs and other mind-altering substances.

All of that feeds a lack of purpose and meaning, one of the more baleful plights of the human condition, in turn, feeding mass delusion, mob violence, and social upheaval. But it’s also party time, an opportunity to get outside in nice weather and consort with your peers, Z’s among fellow Z’s, illegal immigrants with fellow illegals. It affords opportunities for intrepid acts of derring-do — taunting the cops, flinging bricks, doing wheelies and “donuts” with motor vehicles — in order to impress potential sex partners. In other words, looking for fun and excitement, as youth will.

Alas, none of this works too well in an era of profound boundary problems — exploited very deliberately by the Democratic Party, which has erased the moral boundaries between decent behavior and crime, just as it tried to erase the boundary between the United States and Mexico. All of that needs to be fixed. Mr. Trump is aiming to fix it. It is liable to be a heck of a struggle, perhaps even as bad as a new civil war.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post California Dreamin’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

A few days ago, I had the great pleasure to sit down again with my good friend James Patrick in person, in Monte Brè. It was a truly spontaneous and unfiltered conversation about the current state of the world, the bizarre geopolitical situation and the tragicomical moment in history that we find ourselves in. We talked about the extreme, and likely unprecedented, risks we face in the global economic and financial system and I’m very glad we decided to record this conversation, as I truly believe many of the points raised in it have the potential to directly impact a lot of investors and ordinary savers, especially those who understand history and can already identify important patterns.

I’ve known James for quite a few years already and he was one of the very few people who had the courage to speak out against State abuses and to defend individual freedoms when it was truly uncomfortable and unrewarding to do so. At the height of the covid hysteria, he produced the eye-opening documentary “Planet Lockdown”, which I was honored to contribute to. James shares a lot, if not most, of my own viewpoints, but due to his keen eye for detail, he often goes even further in his deductions and his extrapolations. Regardless of whether I agree with or challenge his conclusions, he is always eager to elaborate, to counter argue and to engage in a sincere and sophisticated debate with me.

Quite reliably and predictably, this usually makes our discussions particularly enjoyable, spirited and intense, but also enlightening and thought provoking. It is an increasingly rare and elusive experience that I, as well as most independent thinkers out there, are finding all but impossible to engage in these days. The general level of public discourse and the catastrophic deterioration in the capacity for most people to defend their positions and beliefs though rational argumentation, has rendered too many “debates” inconsequential and it has reduced a lot more to entirely futile shouting matches that appear to have more in common with a circus performance than an respectful, open and real human interaction.

I hope you’ll enjoy this conversation as much as we did.

If you have troubles because of automatic audio translation YouTube; please click on the following link for original in englisch: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Eh2MLSX5c0ex

The post A Politically Incorrect ‘Where Are We Now?’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Barnes and Baris Episode 91: What Are the Odds? Trump Surged on Sunday Amid L.A. Riots Over Immigration, Latest on Elon’s Big Beautiful Bill Breakup, and Fake MAGA Replacing Anti-MAGA in U.S. Senate appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Jay Stephenson:

I know a lot of people have been surprised at the recent statements from Kash Patel on Jeffrey Epstein but they shouldn’t be. Like everyone else in Trump’s cabinet, he’s pro-Israel and hawkish on Iran. Same with Dan Bongino.

And they always use the “I’m your buddy, you can trust me” routine on these podcasts while  making some correct statements on COVID or Russiagate. But that just might be part of the deception. 

When Joe Rogan realizes Kash Patel has been compromised 

https://youtu.be/qtKhe0D_wag?si=NxzUIAKTUFfS1F_g

Kash Patel: Israelis can’t take on Iran alone

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6362954750112

 

The post Mash Patel should never have been trusted appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Jesse Trentadue.

Headline USA

 

The post 30-Year Cover-Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

Waxing Indignant Over 911 Truth

The post Test Your 9/11 Knowledge: The Explosive Evidence at the 3 WTC Towers appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post California Riots: Color Revolution? Psy-Op? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

 

The post Moderna’s “Death Spike” Heavy Metal Branding appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

Raw video

 

The post Officer fires rubber bullet at Australian reporter covering LA protests appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Krall wrote:

And How They’re STILL Relevant Today.

The post Europe’s Phantom Borders… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

 

The post The European Union is paying NGOs millions of dollars appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Jeffrey Tucker

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-problema-col-globalismo-forzato)

Per anni ho continuato a usare il termine globalismo con approvazione, perché la cooperazione internazionale è una cosa positiva. Viaggiare è meraviglioso, così come lo è la libertà di commerciare e migrare. Come ha fatto la pratica della libertà, che si estende oltre i confini giuridici nazionali, a essere così detestata e denigrata?

Dietro c'è una storia complessa che parla di intrecci tra stati, industria, finanza, strutture governative sovranazionali e del controllo di un gruppo di persone sopra i sistemi.

L'esperienza del Covid ha rivelato tutto. La risposta è stata globale: quasi tutte le nazioni hanno adottato misure di lockdown allo stesso modo, più o meno nello stesso periodo, applicando gli stessi protocolli e adottando le stesse misure (più o meno).

L'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità sembrava dettare legge, con le agenzie sanitarie pubbliche nazionali che si sono disinteressate di ogni questione. Il virus stesso sembrava essere emerso dall'interno di una struttura di ricerca multilaterale sui patogeni e sulle possibili contromisure farmaceutiche.

Inoltre le banche centrali di tutto il mondo hanno collaborato per finanziare la risposta politica, stampando moneta come mai prima per fermare il collasso economico dovuto alle chiusure forzate. Nazioni come Svezia e Nicaragua, che hanno seguito la propria strada, sono state demonizzate dai media di tutto il mondo esattamente allo stesso modo.

I legislatori nazionali non hanno avuto alcun ruolo nei lockdown iniziali; sono stati esclusi dal processo decisionale. Ciò significa che anche i cittadini che li avevano eletti sono stati privati ​​del loro diritto di voto. Nessuno ha votato per la distanza di sicurezza, la chiusura delle attività commerciali e gli obblighi di vaccinazione. Sono stati imposti da editti amministrativi e i sistemi giudiziari non li hanno fermati.

La democrazia come idea, così come lo stato di diritto, sono morti in quei mesi e anni, rimettendosi sempre alle istituzioni globali e ai sistemi finanziari che hanno assunto di fatto il controllo del pianeta. È stata la più sorprendente dimostrazione di potere universale nella storia.

Visti i risultati, non sorprende affatto vedere la reazione negativa, che si è concentrata sulla riaffermazione dei diritti delle nazioni e dei loro cittadini.

Molti difensori della libertà (di destra e di sinistra) sono spesso a disagio con l'ethos di questa reazione e si chiedono se e in quale misura esista un valido precedente storico per rivendicare la sovranità in nome della libertà.

Sono qui per affermare che un tale precedente esiste, un episodio storico quasi completamente dimenticato.

È noto che l'accordo di Bretton Woods del 1944 includeva parti che riguardavano il saldo monetario internazionale (il gold exchange standard) e il sistema bancario (Fondo monetario internazionale e Banca mondiale). Molti conoscono anche l'Accordo generale sulle tariffe doganali e il commercio (1948).

Quello che non è noto è che il GATT era una posizione di ripiego. La bozza originale di Bretton Woods includeva un'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio (OIC) che avrebbe dovuto essere autorizzata a gestire tutti i flussi commerciali globali. Fu redatto nel 1944 e codificato nella Carta dell'Avana del 1948. All'epoca i principali governi e le grandi aziende si impegnarono a ratificare questo accordo come trattato.

L'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio avrebbe dovuto governare il mondo, con gli oligarchi che ne avrebbero preso il controllo in nome della globalizzazione.

Fu messo da parte... perché? Non a causa dell'opposizione di protezionisti e mercantilisti. I principali oppositori dell'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio erano infatti liberisti e libertari. La campagna per smantellare il trattato fu guidata dall'economista franco-americano Philip Cortney e dal suo libro di grande successo intitolato The Economic Munich (1949).

“La Carta dell'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio è un monumento alle illusioni”, scrisse, “un sogno burocratico che ignora la dura realtà delle economie nazionali. Promette il libero scambio ma impone vincoli, costringendo le nazioni a regole che non possono piegarsi alle tempeste dell'inflazione o della scarsità”.

Lui e altri nella sua orbita potevano individuare in quella Carta non la mano della libertà, bensì la pianificazione centralizzata, il corporativismo, l'inflazionismo, la pianificazione fiscale, la politica industriale e il commercio controllato – in breve, quello che oggi viene chiamato globalismo. Era fermamente contrario, proprio perché credeva che avrebbe fatto arretrare la legittima causa del libero scambio e avrebbe sommerso la sovranità nazionale sotto una palude burocratica.

Le obiezioni che aveva erano molte, ma tra queste c'erano quelle incentrate su questioni di saldo monetario. Le nazioni sarebbero state vincolate a un sistema tariffario senza alcuna flessibilità per adeguare i valori delle valute in base ai flussi commerciali. Credeva che l'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio comportasse un rischio reale, che le nazioni non avessero la capacità di adattarsi alle variazioni dei tassi di cambio o ad altre specificità di tempo e luogo. Sebbene la Carta sembrasse promuovere il libero scambio, Cortney credeva che alla fine lo avrebbe indebolito.

Riteneva inoltre che se le nazioni avessero aperto le loro economie alla concorrenza internazionale da ogni angolo del mondo, ciò avrebbe dovuto essere fatto in modo coerente con la governance democratica e i plebisciti nazionali. Un governo globale dal pugno di ferro che imponesse un tale regime avrebbe contraddetto l'intera storia delle posizioni contrarie al mercantilismo e probabilmente sarebbe stato sfruttato dalle grandi aziende e dalla finanza per manipolare il sistema a proprio vantaggio.

Ciò che colpisce di questa argomentazione è che proveniva da un punto di vista liberale/libertario che favoriva i metodi tradizionali per ottenere il libero scambio, opponendosi a quelli che oggi verrebbero definiti mezzi globalisti per ottenerlo.

Infatti Ludwig von Mises disse di quel libro: “La sua brillante critica espone spietatamente le fallacie delle dottrine e delle politiche economiche ufficiali contemporanee. Le tesi principali nel suo saggio sono inconfutabili. Sopravviverà a quest'epoca di futilità politica e sarà letto e riletto come un classico della libertà economica, al pari delle opere di Cobden e Bastiat”.

Fu Cortney, insieme ai suoi compatrioti ideologici nel mondo degli affari e della scrittura editoriale, a silurare la Carta dell'Avana e a gettare l'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio nel dimenticatoio della storia.

Per essere chiari, il rifiuto nei confronti di tale organizzazione non fu il risultato dell'attivismo di reazionari, socialisti, protezionisti o persino nazionalisti economici. Fu respinta da convinti sostenitori del liberalismo economico, del libero scambio e degli interessi commerciali dominati dalle piccole e medie imprese che temevano di essere inghiottite dal pantano globalista.

Queste persone diffidavano della burocrazia in generale e della burocrazia globale in particolare. Quella era una generazione di principi, e all'epoca erano ben consapevoli di come qualcosa potesse sembrare fantastico a parole ma essere orribile nella realtà. Non si fidavano della banda al potere in quei giorni affinché elaborasse un accordo commerciale sostenibile per il mondo.

Il rifiuto dell'Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio è il motivo per cui siamo arrivati ​​all'Accordo Generale sulle Tariffe e il Commercio. Era generale, nel senso che non era una legge consolidata; era un accordo, il che significava che nessuna nazione sarebbe stata costretta a violare i propri interessi; riguardava i dazi, ma non tentava una grande strategia per livellare tutte le valutazioni monetarie; era informale e non formale, decentralizzato e non centralizzato.

Il GATT prevalse fino al 1995, quando l'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio fu imposta sotto un'enorme pressione da parte dei media e delle grandi aziende. Fu una rinascita della vecchia Organizzazione internazionale per il commercio. A quel punto i sostenitori del libero mercato avevano perso la loro sofisticatezza e si erano schierati a favore della nuova agenzia globale. Quasi a confermare la previsione di Cortney, l'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio è ormai diventata obsoleta, capro espiatorio per la stagnazione economica, la deindustrializzazione, gli squilibri monetari e i conti esteri instabili, coperti da riserve estere di asset denominati in dollari.

Ora ci troviamo di fronte a una reazione violenta, sotto forma di politiche mercantiliste grossolane che si stanno abbattendo con furia. L'America è stata la destinazione di enormi quantità di prodotti provenienti dalla Cina, ora bloccate da dazi elevati. Con straordinaria ironia, il New York Times avverte che un dirottamento delle merci dagli Stati Uniti all'Europa potrebbe “portare a uno scenario rischioso per i Paesi europei: il dumping di prodotti artificialmente a basso costo che potrebbe minare le industrie locali”.

Immaginate un po'!

L'equilibrio tra sovranità nazionale e libertà stessa è delicato. Generazioni di intellettuali lo sapevano e si sono guardati bene dal rovesciare l'una per sostenere l'altra. Separare definitivamente le strutture di governo dal controllo dei cittadini, anche solo attraverso un plebiscito periodico, rischia il disastro persino su temi come il commercio, per non parlare della ricerca sulle malattie infettive e sui virus.

Così è arrivata la rivolta, esattamente come aveva previsto Philip Cortney.

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

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

In an earlier column, I wrote about the greatness of Man, Economy, and State. I’d like to continue with a discussion of another great book of his, Power and Market. Actually, that book was intended to be part of MES, but owing to the insistence of one of the readers for the Volker Fund, which funded the publication of MES with Van Nostrand, it had to be removed from the book. Instead, only a truncated chapter was added to the manuscript of MES and the book was published in that form.

Power and Market contains many vital insights that Rothbard had to omit from the truncated chapter of MES. Some of his topics were to hot for Frank S. Meyer, an ex-Communist turned ardent supporter of the Cold War, and other readers who lacked Murray’s intransigence. By the way, the edition of MES published by the Mises Institute included Power and Market, so if you read that, you will have MES as Murray wrote it.

Let’s start with the hottest topic of them all. Most supporters of the free market when Murray wrote MES supported a limited state, but Murray wanted to get rid of the state altogether. This was too much for the Cold Warriors. How can defense be provided on the market? But this is exactly what he favored: “A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of the free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defense against those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government; for the State, unlike all other persons and institutions in society, acquires its revenue, not by exchanges freely contracted, but by a system of unilateral coercion called ‘taxation.’ Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection. Only such libertarian provision of defense service would be consonant with a free market and a free society. Thus, defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market. Defense services, like all other services, would be marketable and marketable only.”

One common objection to Murray’s position, which you can still find today, is that there can’t be a free market until property rights are defined, and only the state can define them, Murray brushed this aside. There is a correct theory of property rights, and people  who accept this theory can readily handle disputes through private agencies. “The laissez-faireists offer several objections to the idea of free-market defense. One objection holds that, since a free market of exchanges presupposes a system of property rights, therefore the State is needed to define and allocate the structure of such rights. But we have seen that the principles of a free society do imply a very definite theory of property rights, namely, self-ownership and the ownership of natural resources found and transformed by one’s labor. Therefore, no State or similar agency contrary to the market is needed to define or allocate property rights. This can and will be done by the use of reason and through market processes themselves; any other allocation or definition would be completely arbitrary and contrary to the principles of the free society.”

Probably the most common objection to anarcho-capitalism is that an outlaw agency could arise and turn the free market into rule by the mafia. Rothbard turns the table on this. He shows that it is the idea of a limited state that is a Utopian pipedream, because any constitutional limits on the government had to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, which was not an independent power but itself part of the government. The brilliant John C. Calhoun also made this point. It is precisely a system of private agencies that can best deal with outlaw agencies, just because the agencies are independent from one another. Murray’s analysis is here: “Another common objection to the workability of free-market defense wonders: May not one or more of the defense agencies turn its coercive power to criminal uses? In short, may not a private police agency use its force to aggress against others, or may not a private court collude to make fraudulent decisions and thus aggress against its subscribers and victims? It is very generally assumed that those who postulate a stateless society are also naive enough to believe that, in such a society, all men would be “good,” and no one would wish to aggress against his neighbor. There is no need to assume any such magical or miraculous change in human nature. Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property. When a State exists, there does exist such a built-in channel, namely, the coercive taxation power, and the compulsory monopoly of forcible protection. In the purely free-market society, a would-be criminal police or judiciary would find it very difficult to take power, since there would be no organized State apparatus to seize and use as the instrumentality of command. To create such an instrumentality de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to establish a functioning State apparatus. Furthermore, the purely free-market, stateless society would contain within itself a system of built-in ‘checks and balances’ that would make it almost impossible for such organized crime to succeed. There has been much talk about ‘checks and balances’ in the American system, but these can scarcely be considered checks at all, since every one of these institutions is an agency of the central government and eventually of the ruling party of that government. The checks and balances in the stateless society consist precisely in the free market, i.e., the existence of freely competitive police and judicial agencies that could quickly be mobilized to put down any outlaw agency.”

This brings us to another insight that Rothbard found in Calhoun, namely that taxation divides people into classes or castes, the taxpayers and the tax-consumers. People who get more benefits from the state than they pay in taxes don’t really pay taxes at all. For example, if you work for the government, you get a salary. Any “taxes” that you pay are actually deductions from this salary: “It has become fashionable to assert that “Conservatives” like John C. Calhoun ‘anticipated’ the Marxian doctrine of class exploitation. But the Marxian doctrine holds, erroneously, that there are ‘classes’ on the free market whose interests clash and conflict. Calhoun’s insight was almost the reverse. Calhoun saw that it was the intervention of the State that in itself created the ‘classes”’ and the conflict. He particularly perceived this in the case of the binary intervention of taxes. For he saw that the proceeds of taxes are used and spent, and that some people in the community must be net payers of tax funds, while the others are net recipients. Calhoun defined the latter as the ‘ruling class’ of the exploiters, and the former as the ‘ruled’ or exploited, and the distinction is quite a cogent one. Calhoun set forth his analysis brilliantly: ‘Few, comparatively, as they are, the agents and employees of the government constitute that portion of the community who are the exclusive recipients of the proceeds of the taxes. Whatever amount is taken from the community in the form of taxes, if not lost, goes to them in the shape of expenditures or disbursements. The two—disbursement and taxation— constitute the fiscal action of the government. They are correlatives. What the one takes from the community under the name of taxes is transferred to the portion of the community who are the recipients under that of disbursements. But as the recipients constitute only a portion of the community, it follows, taking the two parts of the fiscal process together, that its action must be unequal between the payers of the taxes and the recipients of their proceeds. Nor can it be otherwise; unless what is collected from each individual in the shape of taxes shall be returned to him in that of disbursements, which would make the process nugatory and absurd. . . . Such being the case, it must necessarily follow that Such being the case, it must necessarily follow that some one portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements, while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes. It is, then, manifest, taking the whole process together, that taxes must be, in effect, bounties to that portion of the community which receives more in disbursements than it pays in taxes, while to the other which pays in taxes more than it receives in disbursements they are taxes in reality—burdens instead of bounties. This consequence is unavoidable. It results from the nature of the process, be the taxes ever so equally laid. . . . The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes: one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes and, of course, bear exclusively the burden of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers. But the effect of this is to place them in antagonistic relations in reference to the fiscal action of the government and the entire course of policy therewith connected. For the greater the taxes and disbursements, the greater the gain of the one and the loss of the other, and vice versa. . . .’ ‘Ruling’ and ‘ruled’ apply also to the forms of government intervention, but Calhoun was quite right in focusing on taxes and fiscal policy as the keystone, for it is taxes that supply the resources and payment for the State in performing its myriad other acts of intervention.”

Let’s do everything we can to encourage people to read Power and Market and to learn how Rothbard pulverizes all defenders of the State!

The post The Greatness of Power and Market appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gaza, Palestine, is the modern Warsaw, Poland.

The so-called modern civilized world is showing itself to be as uncivilized as any corrupt, authoritarian society in world history. And the United States of America and Israel are leading the pack. There are no nations on the planet today that are showing themselves more bloodthirsty, more calloused to the mass murder of innocents and more guilty of international war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity than these two countries.

I think it is more than coincidental that over 80% of Israelis support Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the people of Gaza and over 80% of evangelicals in America do the same.

Both Judaic Zionism and Christian Zionism are eaten up with the spirit of religious bigotry, racial supremacy, hatred, war and death.

And the people who keep defending and excusing Donald Trump’s refusal to stop the genocide in Gaza—which he could have done his first week in office by cutting off the supply of the instruments of war enabling Israel’s genocide—are showing themselves to be of the same evil, wicked heart as the people in Israel who are defending and excusing Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloodlust.

But Trump is doing much more than enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza; he is leading the effort to remove or silence all dissenting voices in America.

From Al Jazeera:

What is Project Esther, the playbook against pro-Palestine movement in US? 

Advocates say Trump administration appears to be following Project Esther’s recommendations to crackdown on activism.

When the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank in the United States, released a playbook last year for how to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement, it did not garner much attention.

But more than eight months later, the policy document – known as Project Esther – now faces heightened scrutiny from activists and media outlets, in part because President Donald Trump appears to be following its blueprint.

The authors of Project Esther have presented their report as a set of recommendations for combating anti-Semitism, but critics say the document’s ultimate aim is to “poison” groups critical of Israel by painting them as Hamas associates.

Project Esther was created as a response to growing protests against the US support for Israel’s war on Gaza, which United Nations experts and rights groups have described as a genocide.

So, what is Project Esther, and how is it being applied against activists? Here is a look at the document and its ongoing implications for the US.

What is the Heritage Foundation? 

The Heritage Foundation is an influential conservative think tank in Washington, DC, whose stated mission is to “formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense”.

Yet, critics argue that Project Esther calls for government interference to curb individual freedoms, including the rights to free speech and association when it comes to opposing Israeli government policies.

The Heritage Foundation is also behind Project 2025, which critics describe as an authoritarian playbook for the second Trump presidency.

What is the ‘Hamas Support Network’, according to Project Esther? 

The authors claim that groups engaged in advocacy for Palestinian rights are members of the Hamas Support Network (HSN).

In short, the document alleges that the “pro-Palestinian movement” is “effectively a terrorist support network”.

Does the ‘Hamas Support Network’ exist? 

No.

There is no such network in the US, which has stern laws against providing material support to groups designated as “terrorist organisations”, including Hamas.

Beth Miller – the political director at Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a group that the Heritage Foundation names as part of the network – called Project Esther’s allegations “outlandish”.

“It exposes the length of lies and of absurdity that they are going through to try to tear down the Palestinian rights movement,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

How does Project Esther plan to take down the Palestinian rights movement? 

The document calls for a multi-faceted campaign against supporters of Palestinian rights, targeting them legally, politically and financially.

The initiative outlines 19 goals that it labels as “desired effects”.

They include denying Palestinian rights supporters who are not US citizens access to universities, ensuring that social media platforms do not allow “anti-Semitic content”, and presenting evidence of “criminal activity” by Palestine advocates to the executive branch.

It also calls for refusing to grant permits for protests organised in support of Palestinian rights.

“We must wage lawfare,” it reads, referring to the tactic of using litigation to pressure opponents.

Is the Trump administration turning Project Esther recommendations into policy? 

It appears to be the case.

“The phase we’re in now is starting to execute some of the lines of effort in terms of legislative, legal and financial penalties for what we consider to be material support for terrorism,” Coates told The New York Times.

Trump’s crackdown on college protests seems to align with what Project Esther is trying to achieve.

For example, the US administration has been revoking the visas of foreign students critical of Israel. This echoes a proposal in Project Esther, which calls for identifying students “in violation of student visa requirements.”

Why focus on universities? 

Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a US policy fellow at Al-Shabaka, a Palestinian think tank, said Project Esther targets universities because Israel is bleeding support among young people in the US.

“That’s why there’s such an overwhelming focus on universities and college campuses,” he told Al Jazeera’s The Take podcast.

Kenney-Shawa explained that support for Israel’s war on Gaza has been trending downwards across US demographics. But on college campuses, the change is more pronounced.

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 53 percent of US respondents had negative views of Israel, a number that rises to 71 percent among Democrats below the age of 50.

Is Project Esther working? 

Advocates say that, in the immediate future, the crackdown on the Palestine solidarity movement threatens the safety and wellbeing of activists, especially foreign students. But it has also sparked a backlash.

“The extreme nature of these attacks has also emboldened people to defiantly continue to speak out in the face of these attacks,” JVP’s Miller said.

“And it has actually, in many cases, awoken people – who weren’t paying attention before – to the hypocrisy that has so long existed in the willingness to silence and censor Palestinian rights activists.”

Earlier in May, several right-wing lawmakers and Trump allies came out in opposition of a bill that aimed to expand restrictions on boycotts of Israel, citing free speech concerns.

Trump’s anti-free speech tyranny is starting in America’s colleges and universities, but it won’t stop there. Tyrants like Trump are never content with partial tyranny; it’s total tyranny they want. And Trump has a large cadre of fellow travelers helping him.

The Mainstream Media 

All of America’s largest media outlets are persistent propagandists for Israel. They have censured access of the American people to the graphic realities and honest news reporting of Israel’s mass murders, rapes, torture and mass starvation of the Gazan people since the genocide began.

To be sure, graphic photos and videos, along with many detailed news reports, are available to the American people online, if they are willing to search for it. And, thankfully, many Americans are watching the daily horrors committed by the satanic Israeli government. That’s why now over 50% of the American people have negative views on Israel.

The Israel Lobby

There are scores of organizations in Washington, D.C., New York and other places in the U.S. shilling for Israel, most notable being The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

I list many of the Israeli lobby groups operating in Washington here.

These organizations spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually lobbying the president, congressmen, senators and governors. Only the willingly blind do not know that the U.S. government—with the exception of a precious few brave, honest souls such as Thomas Massie and Rand Paul—are literally in the pockets of the Israel lobby.

Evangelical Televangelists, Pastors and Churches

Support for Israel among the vast majority of evangelical churches borders on fanaticism. People write to me every week telling me of their experiences within these Zionist “churches.” The word fanaticism is not hyperbolic.

Christian Zionism has become a religious cult.

These very powerful and influential institutions are uber supportive of Trump’s anti-free speech tyranny. What has started on university campuses will spill over into the commercial and religious worlds in earnest during the rest of Trump’s administration.

In fact, it’s already happening.

My friend, USS Liberty survivor and the President of the USS Liberty Veterans Association Phil Tourney, reports that Stew Peters and others were banned from appearing at the hotel where the Liberty survivors are conducting their upcoming 58th reunion, because of their opinions regarding Israel’s genocide in Gaza. And without the enthusiastic support for Israel by evangelical pastors, televangelists and churches, the Zionist stranglehold over Washington, D.C., would come crashing down.

Bradlee Dean nailed it when he wrote:

You look at any government that means to control the people and the very first thing that you see them do is to illegally censor free speech.

But the real goal of the Zionist regime is to end the preaching and teaching of the New Testament. I explain this reality in a two-part message series entitled: In Zionist America, You Are Antisemitic If . . . . 

Here is Part One of that message on YouTube.

Gaza, Palestine, is the modern Warsaw, Poland. And Christian Zionists in America are Trump’s enablers as he follows the Project Esther playbook to expunge all vestiges of resistance to this 21st-century holocaust.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Donald Trump Following Project Esther Playbook appeared first on LewRockwell.

It is likely that nobody who will read this article has any idea that Mantes-la-Jolie is a town nestled into a curve of the Seine river about 50 km northwest of the center of Paris. The town, at the limit of the Paris region called Ile-de-France and the Normandie region, became significant to me recently because I was reading the works of Henry Adams. Henry Adams is one of the more interesting public intellectuals in American history. I wrote about him in a 2015 article about Gore Vidal’s novel Empire.

The key historical characters in the book are John Hay and Henry Adams. With their wives and Clarence King they made up The Five of Hearts; a circle of friends that created a literary and political salon across Lafayette Park from the White House.  Hay came from Illinois to Washington to be President Lincoln’s private secretary. During the period of the book he was the Secretary of State for President William McKinley; and after his assassination, he continued to serve in the same capacity for President Theodore Roosevelt. Adams, a member of the most prestigious American families, was the great-grandson and grandson of presidents. He was also known in his own right as a political thinker and writer; his memoir The Education of Henry Adams is considered one of the greatest American books ever written.

Adams frequently visited France and wrote a wonderful book about Gothic architecture, as described by Wikipedia:

In 1904, Adams privately published a copy of his “Mont Saint Michel and Chartres“, a pastiche of history, travel, and poetry that celebrated the unity of medieval society, especially as represented in the great cathedrals of France. Originally meant as a diversion for his nieces and “nieces-in-wish”, it was publicly released in 1913 at the request of Ralph Adams Cram, an important American architect, and published with support of the American Institute of Architects.

It was in this book that I came to read about Mantes (now called Mantes-la-Jolie – Wikipedia, Mantes-the-Pretty in English).

The last of Norman art is seen at Mantes, where there is a little church of Gassicourt that marks the farthest reach of the style. In arms as in architecture, Mantes barred the path of Norman conquest; William the Conqueror met his death here in 1087. Geographically Mantes is in the Ile de France, less than forty miles from Paris. Architecturally, it is Paris itself; while, forty miles to the southward, is Chartres, an independent or only feudally dependent country. No matter how hurried the architectural tourist may be, the boundary-line of the Ile de France is not to be crossed without stopping. If he came down from the north or east, he would have equally to stop,—either at Beauvais, or at Laon, or Noyon, or Soissons,—because there is an architectural douane to pass, and one’s architectural baggage must be opened. Neither Notre Dame de Paris nor Notre Dame de Chartres is quite intelligible unless one has first seen Notre Dame de Mantes, and studied it in the sacred sources of M. Viollet-le-Duc.[see note at the end of the post] Notre Dame de Mantes is a sister to the Cathedral of Paris, “built at the same time, perhaps by the same architect, and reproducing its general dispositions, its mode of structure, and some of its details”; but the Cathedral of Paris has been greatly altered, so that its original arrangement is quite changed, while the church at Mantes remains practically as it was, when both were new, about the year 1200.

As I have written for LewRockwell.com about the cathedrals Notre Dames de Chartres and Notre Dame de Paris, I felt compelled to visit this great church in Mantes-la-Jolie (officially not the seat of a bishop, and therefore, not a cathedral). Adams wrote “The church at Mantes is a very early fact in Gothic art; indeed, it is one of the earliest; for our purposes it will serve as the very earliest of pure Gothic churches.”

According to Adams, “The church towers at Mantes are very interesting, inside and out; they are evidently studied with love and labour by their designer; yet they have no fleches. How happens it that Notre Dame at Paris also has no fleches, although the towers, according to Viollet-le-Duc, are finished in full preparation for them? This double omission on the part of the French architect seems exceedingly strange, because his rival at Chartres finished his fleche just when the architect of Paris and Mantes was finishing his towers (1175-1200).”

Furthermore, Adams states that “this rose [window] of Mantes is the first Gothic rose of great dimensions, and that from which the others grew; in its simplicity, its honesty, its large liberality of plan, it is also one of the best, if M. Viollet-le-Duc is a true guide”

At the west portal most of the statues were decapitated in 1794 during the revolution.

The battles over Mantes continued for centuries after William was mortally wounded there in 1087, and during the Hundred Years’ War (Battle of Soindres). I imagine these battles were in the mind of General George Patton when he was the first of the allies to cross the Seine with the Third Army in August of 1944. The town was severely damaged many times over its history due to these battles. But there has been another form of destruction that has plagued the town since the war.

Social engineering through large scale public housing projects have been an affliction on the human and environmental condition wherever they have been implemented. I grew up in Chicago so I am familiar with the notorious Cabrini–Green Homes – Wikipedia project.

…Cabrini–Green was located at the boundary of two of Chicago’s wealthiest neighborhoods, Lincoln Park and the Gold Coast, and less than a mile from the Magnificent Mile. Despite its proximity to affluent areas, the complex was marked by high poverty rates. Gang activity was prominent, with individual gangs controlling specific buildings, and residents often felt compelled to affiliate with them for protection.

Unlike in the US where the projects were placed in the inner cities, in France the housing projects were placed outside of the cities in the banlieue (suburbs). Mantes-la-Jolie is at the end of the suburban train lines J and N serving Paris.

Suburban train lines between Mantes-la-Jolie and Paris.

I believe that Mantes-la-Jolie is better known today as being one of the hell holes of France than the site of a beautiful Medieval church. The Le Val Fourré — Wikipédia housing project was conceived in the 1950s and construction was largely completed in the 60s. It only took until the early 90s that it was realized that it was a failure and some buildings were demolished. Since then there have been continuing attempts to save the project, but the crime persists.

The district has been classified as a priority security zone since 2012, with increased numbers of national police officers. Indeed, the commune “suffers more than others from daily insecurity and deep-rooted delinquency”[14] and “has experienced a significant deterioration in its security conditions in recent years”[14], which was identified as such by the Ministry of the Interior of the Jean-Marc Ayrault government, thus allowing this area to benefit from additional police officers. (translated by Google from Wikipedia)

The Val Fourré district of Mantes-la-Jolie.

The Cabrini–Green Homes public housing project in Chicago.

According to a recent article (A Mantes-la-Jolie, le Val Fourré, l’un des quartiers les plus pauvres de France, poursuit sa mue | Les Echos) two more high rise buildings are scheduled to be demolished.

Published on April 18, 2025 at 10:43 AM Updated on April 21, 2025 at 3:29 PM

In a few weeks, Europe’s largest hydraulic crane, standing 70 meters high, will begin chipping away at two high-rise buildings still standing in the Val Fourré district of Mantes-la-Jolie (Yvelines). Built in the 1960s, these two Ader towers, each around twenty stories high, are a symbol of the urban planning then in vogue. Their demolition will mark the beginning of a broader renovation of the area.

It has now been 25 years since the rehabilitation of Val Fourré, which now has a population of 20,000. More than half of the 110-hectare neighborhood, one of the poorest in France, has already been transformed and around fifteen towers demolished… For an estimated cost of over €420 million. (translated by Google)

On my visit I did not see the crane taking down the buildings.

My conclusion, the building project that is the church has been a beautiful blessing for Mantes for over 800 years, while the socialist scheme of the Val Fourée has been a baleful blight for virtually all of its 80 years.

Notes

Adams relies heavily on the 19 century French architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc for his descriptions and analysis of Medieval French architecture. Viollet-le-Duc was the architect of many renovations of Medieval buildings including Notre Dame de Paris that added the spire. It was shocking to see this spire collapse during the 2019 fire.

At the end of my 2015 article about Vidal’s Empire I compared Trump to William Randolph Hearst as he was characterized in the novel.

There is the crux of the reason for Trump’s popularity; by approaching the politically incorrect immigration issue head on he gives the impression that because he is rich he cannot be bought.  However, in the end Hearst was denied the Democratic nomination through backroom deals at the party convention. For all his power and wealth, Hearst was usually denied in his several attempts at elective office (with the exception of a stint in the US House of Representatives).  We can be assured that in all the political back rooms in the country there are discussions and plots being hatched to block Trump. We might expect, as Rockwell has supposed, that “the regime might even roll out one of its lone-nut gunmen” to solve the problem.

The post Mantes-la-Jolie appeared first on LewRockwell.

CCTV camera in downtown OKC. Image courtesy of CNN.

Diagram showing the area of the Murrah Federal Building’s North Face that was covered by the Regency Towers exterior security cameras

“All they showed us were a series of video still photographs showing the Ryder truck, but no one in or around the vehicle.”

“We were never allowed to see the photo evidence from the cameras on the Murrah Building that would have shown the truck being parked and the people who got out of the truck”

“That’s all on tape, and we were authorized to see all of that, but we weren’t allowed to see it…and in fact, nobody has been allowed to see it.” — Federal Grand Juror Hoppy Heidelberg

Today, closed circuit surveillance cameras are ubiquitous. You’ll find them everywhere: gas stations, at stoplights, on government property, on private property. At the time of the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the situation was roughly the same. In downtown Oklahoma City, you could find surveillance cameras mounted at over a dozen properties: on the Regency Towers apartment building, the Journal Records Building, the Southwestern Bell building, the post office, and elsewhere. The properties surrounding the Alfred P. Murrah federal building were saturated with surveillance cameras, some of which, FBI records reveal, actually captured the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing on film.

The first reports concerning surveillance camera footage were aired on CNN within days of the bombing. One early CNN report broadcast that “the FBI says that it has surveillance camera video of the bomb site” which was then followed by a clip of FBI on-scene-commander Weldon Kennedy urging all businesses in the area to come forward to provide their security camera recordings, which they did do. Summarily, later that same week, CNN further reported that “the FBI says that it has obtained videotapes from security cameras in the vicinity of the blast and may have tape of the Ryder rental truck used to house the enormous bomb.”

Note that in CNN’s second broadcast about the tapes, CNN reported that the FBI had “videotapes,” plural, and “security cameras,” plural, implying that more than one recording had been obtained. This is confirmed by FBI investigatory records, court transcripts, and even testimony under oath by an FBI agent assigned to the case. Indeed, just eight days after the bombing, a preliminary hearing held in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma shed considerable light on the FBI’s evidence in the case, to include both witnesses and surveillance recordings.

By the time of the April 27th, 1995 preliminary hearing, the primary suspect — Timothy McVeigh — was in custody. The purpose for the preliminary hearing was to show probable cause and a reasonable basis for proceeding in case no. CR-95–98, the United States of America vs. Timothy James McVeigh. Leading the charge in the government’s case at the preliminary hearing was principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Merrick Garland, a top aid to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Garland’s chief witness at the hearing was FBI Special Agent Jon Hersley, who would go on to give testimony that would serve to confirm that the FBI had in its possession multiple surveillance camera recordings.

Special Agent Hersley would recount during the hearing that he had seen both video and photographs (still-image video frames) taken from surveillance recordings seized by the FBI. Hersley testified that one of the photos he had seen depicted a Ryder truck moving east on 5th street. This photo was sourced from a surveillance camera identified as having come from the Regency Towers apartment complex. The Regency Towers was located less than a block from the Murrah Building and had an unobstructed view of the north face of the building.

Hersley’s testimony is worth citing here because it is so specific concerning footage that the FBI had seized during their investigation:

Q. So you say there is film available that shows the — a Ryder Truck in an easterly direction, that is traveling in an easterly direction on Fifth Street?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it past the street that we know as Harvey?

A. I am not — I have not studied that film in detail. It’s in that general vicinity right in there. It may be the video that I saw. I believe it is just before — well, I am not sure. I better not say that.

Q. Well, Harvey Street —

A. I don’t know.

Q. Harvey Street is the street that is immediately west of the Murrah Building?

A. That is correct.

Q. Are the photographs that you saw or, is it still photo or film?

A. What I saw was the still photos.

Q. Is it a still photo that has been removed from a film?

A. Yes.

Q. So it was a close-up more of the truck than it’s location?

A. It wasn’t a close-up photo, it was taken from a camera off one of the buildings in the vicinity.

Q. Did you make a determination of what building it came off of?

A. No, I did not myself.

Q. Okay, did anyone?

A. I believe one of the other agents was able to determine that it came from one — one of the films came from the Regency Tower Apartments.

Q. Was there a time indicated on the picture of the film that you saw?

A. Yeah.

Agent Hersley’s testimony clarifies that the FBI had in its possession multiple surveillance camera recordings from the area. When Hersley testified that “one of the films came from the Regency Tower Apartments,” his use of the word “films,” plural, indicates there was more than recording.

In addition to having seen photos taken from a surveillance video depicting a Ryder truck on 5th street, Hersley testified that he had seen photos depicting another location —a parking lot next to the Journal Records Building.

Hersley testified at length about a key witness (Gary Lewis) who had seen Timothy McVeigh — and another suspect — speeding away from an alley adjacent to the Journal Records Building and that this vicinity was covered by the seized surveillance footage.

Hersley’s testimony concerning the Journal Records building and associated surveillance footage recordings were covered during the preliminary hearing—to varying degrees of specificity—and these key portions are excerpted below:

Q. Where did this witness see the yellow Mercury speeding away?

A. Over in the direction — in the parking lot, in an area where the witness I had previously testified about said that the individual he identified as Mr. McVeigh was walking in a northerly direction towards.

Q. Where is that parking lot, sir?

A. Over on the north side of Fifth Street, close to the Journal Record Building.

Q. This particular male witness has indicated that he saw the — a yellow Mercury speeding away?

A. Yes.

Q. Did this particular witness indicate to agents of the FBI how many persons were in the speeding yellow Mercury?

A. Two.

Q. I assume speeding away on Fifth Street; is that correct?

A. Well, I think it is actually the alley area that would be immediately north of Fifth Street.

Q. Immediately north of Fifth Street is a parking lot there. Are you talking about the —

A. The north side of that parking lot.

Q. So the alley between the Journal Record Building and the parking lot? I’m sorry to interrupt you, I didn’t mean to.

Are you talking about that area, that alley?

A. I’m talking about the area on the north side of the parking lot that we have been speaking about.

Q. That’s where you are telling the Court that the yellow Mercury was speeding through that particular alley?

A. Yes.

Q. In your review of the surveillance photos, did you find any surveillance photos of that parking lot across the street from the Murrah Building?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you been shown a photograph of that particular parking lot, sir, across the street from the Murrah Building that includes the speeding Mercury in the photograph?

A. We don’t know for sure yet. Those photographs are not real clear. They are taken from a pretty good distance away. There appears to be a light-colored car in the very vicinity where this witness testifies — or provides the information was speeding away from. We are not able to determine yet if that is in fact the yellow Mercury.

Q. The pictures that you saw of that particular parking lot — now I’m talking about the parking lot across the street from the Murrah Building — in a northerly direction, that parking lot, there is a film of that parking lot prior to the time of the explosion?

A. Yes.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it time-stamped so that you can tell a particular time of day on the 19th of April that that camera is viewing, scanning that parking lot?

A. Yes.

In addition to confirming that the FBI had in its possession surveillance camera footage, the April 27th preliminary hearing also makes it very clear that the FBI had multiple eyewitnesses to Timothy McVeigh — with an accomplice — in downtown Oklahoma City that morning. Agent Hersley’s testimony reflects this, and he testifies no less than three times during the preliminary hearing words to the effect that “our primary focus right now is to try to determine the identity and the location of the other subjects.”

Agent Hersley testifies at length concerning the eyewitness accounts of Gary Lewis, Rodney Johnson, Dena Hunt, and Mike Moroz. All four of these witnesses saw McVeigh with another person in downtown Oklahoma City. One of them, mechanic Mike Moroz, picked McVeigh out of an FBI lineup in downtown Oklahoma City within days of the bombing. Moroz saw and spoke to McVeigh up-close, giving him directions from Johnny’s Tire about 20 minutes before the bombing. According to Moroz, there was a passenger in the Ryder truck with McVeigh when he spoke to him that morning. That passenger has come to be known as John Doe #2.

The other suspect— John Doe #2 — has never been captured and the FBI today denies that he exists. The man’s identity remains a controversial subject, the basis of much speculation.

What can be said with certainty is that many witnesses observed Timothy McVeigh with another person in downtown Oklahoma City and the surveillance footage of the bombing, described in the April 27th preliminary hearing, may depict that other suspect. Fueling speculation about this other suspect is the fact that Associate Deputy Attorney General Merrick Garland issued objections during the preliminary hearing whenever direct questions were asked concerning the surveillance camera footage or John Doe #2:

MR. COYLE: Who are those agents that are tasked with the responsibility of reviewing photographs and film footage?

MR. GARLAND: Objection, Your Honor. This is now purely speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HERSLEY: The agent that showed me the photographs was Walt Lamar.

MR COYLE: And is he the one that you inquired as to whether or not there were any photographs of the accused, Mr. Timothy McVeigh, in possession of the government, at or about the Ryder Truck? You asked him that question I assume; did you not?

MR. HERSLEY. I did not inquire of Agent Lamar about these photographs. He brought it to my attention because there is a possibility of a particular car being involved in one of those photographs that he was showing me. We are continuing investigation to try to determine the actual identity of that car.

MR HERSLEY: I know there was at least one male that observed the Ryder Truck and the occupants of the Ryder Truck. That person also advised that the individual in the truck closely resembled the individual depicted in composite one.

MR COYLE: Did you tell me he saw occupants of a Ryder Truck and there were more than one?

MR. GARLAND: Objection. The only person on trial at this hearing is Mr. McVeigh. It doesn’t matter whether there were two or a hundred people in that truck as long as there was somebody representing Mr. McVeigh there. It is discovery and totally outside the scope of this hearing.

MR. COYLE: May I respond? I think it is important to see if we distinguish it as the same truck or not. I think it is very important to the credibility of the witnesses and credibility of the evidence and what they saw as to whether or not the next person saw three or five or six or —

THE COURT: Objection overruled. Go ahead.

MR. HERSLEY: This witness advised that there were two individuals in the truck. The individual resembling Mr. McVeigh was the driver.

None of the surveillance videos mentioned in the CNN broadcasts or the April 27th preliminary hearing were shown at the McVeigh and Nichols federal trials in 1997 and 1998. It was as if they simply did not exist. This made little sense — if the FBI had videotape showing McVeigh in Oklahoma City that would constitute “best evidence” that could put McVeigh at the scene of the crime. The eyewitnesses who saw McVeigh in downtown Oklahoma City would also be damning evidence. Yet, none of those eyewitnesses were called to testify at trial. This could be because every one of these witnesses saw McVeigh with another person and that other person is still unaccounted for today.

It was four years after the bombing, after Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols had both been convicted, that the full scope of the FBI’s surveillance footage of the bombing emerged. In 1999, during a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, it was revealed that the FBI had in fact taken into possession nearly two dozen recordings from surveillance cameras in the downtown Oklahoma City area.

FOIA Lawsuits Reveal Secret Footage

A 1999 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by investigative journalist David Hoffman produced documents that revealed the FBI had twenty two video surveillance recordings of the Murrah building and surrounding area stored at the FBI’s Oklahoma City field office. Curiously, a single surveillance tape was listed as housed under lock and key in Washington, D.C. at FBI headquarters.

The central issue of Hoffman’s lawsuit was that the FBI had conceded to the existence of the surveillance camera footage but refused to release it pursuant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

During Hoffman’s FOIA suit, FBI lawyers filed multiple motions for summary judgment — essentially asking the judge to throw the case out in their favor. Each subsequent motion filed by the Department of Justice cited entirely different reasons for withholding the material, seemingly coming up with new excuses each time. These motions were summarily dismissed with increasing criticism from the judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Court Judge Wayne Alley.

Alley wrote that the FBI had put forward insufficient “justifications for withholding all materials in its investigative files concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing” and further stated that the FBI had exhibited “shoddy conduct” during the litigation.

Judge Alley wrote that “the court would be inclined” to compel the FBI the release the surveillance footage, however, ultimately, the Judge ruled that he was unable to do so. A previous order issued by Judge Richard P. Matsch, presiding judge in the McVeigh and Nichols Federal trials, deemed that the surveillance camera footage from the bombing investigation was under seal while the McVeigh and Nichols trial convictions were subject to appeal(s). As a result, Judge Alley ruled that “the Court is presently powerless to grant plaintiff relief under FOIA” in view of Judge Matsch’s ruling.

Judge Alley would add, however, that Hoffman “raises a legitimate point” that the federal criminal case against bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols was nearing end and thus Matsch’s order to seal the evidence would presumably expire as those cases and subsequent appeals ended. Judge Alley spells out this position by writing that the FBI’s “justification for its shroud of secrecy may likewise soon end.”

Hoffman’s suit wouldn’t be the last time the FBI would face legal challenges concerning the secret footage. The video recordings seized by the FBI during the OKC bombing investigation have once again become central to a legal battle. A FOIA lawsuit concerning the tapes is currently being litigated by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue. The FBI sent Trentadue a batch of 30 recordings following a Freedom of Information Act request that Trentadue filed. However, Trentadue noted that the footage the FBI produced was of little value — it shows absolutely nothing of interest. The recordings released by the FBI don’t show anything whatsoever prior to the 9:02 AM blast. Jesse Trentadue says the tapes are clearly incomplete. “Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995? There ain’t no such thing as a coincidence” Trentadue told the Associated Press after receipt of the incomplete footage.

The FBI claims that the security cameras failed to record the moments leading up to the blast because “they had run out of tape” or, improbably, because “the tape was being replaced” during the minutes and hours prior to the April 19th, 1995 bombing.

Trentadue noted that “the interesting thing is [the tapes] spring back on after 9:02 AM” and that “the absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn’t want anybody to see.”

The surveillance tapes released to Trentadue appear to be incomplete and this can be reasonably demonstrated based on what has previously been written about the surveillance recordings in FBI and Secret Service documents from the bombing investigation. These supporting documents were introduced as exhibits in Trentadue’s FOIA lawsuit currently being litigated in Salt Lake City. Additional insight as to what appears on the tapes can be gleaned from statements by FBI agents and law enforcement personnel who have seen the footage.

Read the Whole Article

The post Surveillance Recordings Show OKC Bombing, Accomplices appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Laura Delano: The Dark Truth About Antidepressants, SSRIs, and the Psychiatrists Lying for Profit appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have been having the most interesting conversations with ChatGPT. While I have previously dismissed AI as never having true intelligence, after using ChatGPT 4.1 for a while, I have found that I was partly wrong. While AI still can’t tell truth from error very well, it nevertheless possesses a remarkable degree of intelligence in recognizing patterns and performing analysis. While still extremely constrained regarding certain topics to support much of the wicked policies of today’s Western society, it can still be remarkably unbiased – much more so than most people.

With this introduction and disclaimer regarding the use of ChatGPT, I would like to present an interesting and informative conversation regarding Trump’s endorsement and promotion of using Palantir and its technology for surveillance. I personally have grown weary of the fear-mongering and demagoguery that is so prevalent today, so this conversation was quite refreshing to me. I consider it to be a rather cool-headed and unbiased analysis of the threat posed by the combined forces of this company and the federal government.

I present it to you unedited. Judge for yourself the level of future risk and plan accordingly. I will add some of my own comments as well at the end.

Me:

Palatir: personal security threat? How significant is the risk of Trump’s promotion of Palatir resulting in a draconian police state much like exists today in Britain?

ChatGPT:

Let’s address the issue directly and insightfully:

1. What is Palantir?

Palantir Technologies is a U.S.-based data analytics company specializing in aggregating, analyzing, and visualizing large data sets—often for government agencies, law enforcement, intelligence, and the military. Its software (notably Palantir Gotham and Foundry) is used for surveillance, predictive policing, border security, and social network analysis.

2. Trump’s Promotion of Palantir

Trump has openly praised Palantir and considered it for national border and security roles, and his allies have touted Palantir as key to “restoring law and order.” Under both Trump and Biden, Palantir has won government contracts, but Trump’s rhetoric suggests an intent to more aggressively use technology for internal security and immigration enforcement.

3. The “British Model”

Britain is one of the most surveilled societies globally:

• Widespread CCTV coverage.
• Centralized police databases.
• Predictive policing tools.
• Aggressive monitoring of social media and internet usage, including police knock-on-door visits for “hate speech” or “wrongthink.”

In the UK, a combination of government contracts with tech firms, a lack of constitutional protections for free speech or privacy (compared to the US), and centralized policing makes the system efficient—and oppressive.

4. Is the US at Risk of the Same?

Key Points:

• Palantir does not create laws; it enables enforcement. The threat depends on the legal and political climate, not just the technology.
• US legal protections (Fourth Amendment, free speech) are more robust than Britain’s. But these have been eroding, especially since 9/11.
• Existing trends:
  • Expansion of surveillance (FISA, Patriot Act, “fusion centers”).
  • Increasing partnerships between tech firms and government.
  • Domestic extremism task forces that can blur the lines between legitimate dissent and “threats.”
• Trump’s history and rhetoric: Strong emphasis on law and order, sometimes at the expense of civil liberties. His administration has already ramped up ICE surveillance with Palantir.

5. What Would Be Different Under Trump + Palantir?

• Acceleration of current trends: Likely increase in data aggregation, cross-agency information sharing, and predictive policing.
• Targeting of political enemies: Based on past behavior, it is plausible Trump would use enhanced surveillance tools to monitor political opponents, protestors, or “unpatriotic” elements—if the legal framework permits.
• Chilling effect: Knowledge of pervasive surveillance, especially if coupled with publicized arrests or punishments for dissent, can deter opposition—similar to Britain’s “police knock” culture.

6. Obstacles to a Full British-Style Police State in the US

• Decentralized policing: US law enforcement is fragmented; not all states and municipalities will comply with federal initiatives.
• Armed citizenry: Widespread gun ownership and a political culture wary of government overreach.
• Constitutional litigation: Courts can (and sometimes do) strike down overreaches, though the judiciary’s reliability is not absolute.

7. Bottom Line: How Significant is the Threat?

• Moderate to High, given current trends and Trump’s rhetoric. The main constraint is the U.S. legal structure and political opposition—both of which have been weakening.
• If Palantir is given a central role in domestic security under an administration willing to push legal boundaries, the risk of a “soft” police state (constant monitoring, data-driven policing, and suppression of dissent) is real.
• Britain’s system is a warning: Technology, once embedded, is hard to dislodge, and the culture of “if you have nothing to hide…” can quickly become dominant.

Summary Judgment:
The promotion and centralization of Palantir in U.S. domestic security, especially under a Trump administration with a “law and order” mandate, materially increases the risk of a British-style surveillance state. The technical capability already exists—the only real constraint is the will and ability of Americans to resist its application.

If you want, I can break down specific scenarios or examine Palantir contracts, or discuss what practical resistance or mitigation might look like.

Me:

I suspect, but am not very firm in that suspicion, that current monitoring of US citizen activities is limited and broad database queries are not currently possible. What I mean is that despite ATFs database of gun ownership, credit card companies records of weapon related purchases, social media posts, minor in-state infractions, e.g. parking tickets, income and expense records submitted to the IRS – all these records exist in separate databases, and no entity can cross-search them. Those are just a few examples that come to mind.

That said, will this Palantir initiative bring all these database records into a common search engine, which then combined with AI will then allow target oppression for groups of people fitting a certain profile? And am I correct that such records are currently completely fragmented? One example of a combined database that comes to mind is IRS tax enforcement. Rather than simply look at submitted returns for red flags, this agency could compare them to credit card purchases as well.

ChatGPT:

Your suspicion about current database fragmentation is largely correct, but the direction of travel is unmistakably toward integration—and Palantir’s core business is accelerating that process.

Let’s break down the present reality and the risks posed by Palantir’s approach.

1. Current Reality: Fragmented but Increasingly Linked

a. Fragmentation

• Separate Agencies, Separate Databases:
  • ATF: Firearm sales/ownership, NICS background checks.
  • Credit Card Companies: Retail transaction records (flagged but not always shared).
  • Social Media: Monitored by DHS/FBI for “threats,” but not automatically cross-referenced with, say, IRS data.
  • Local Police: Traffic violations, warrants, arrest records—often not shared beyond the state or jurisdiction.
  • IRS: Income and tax filings, not linked directly to other government databases.
• Technical and Legal Barriers:
  • Privacy laws, incompatible formats, bureaucratic silos.
  • Agencies are not permitted (or currently able, in most cases) to just “query everything” in real time about a given citizen.

b. Existing Integration Attempts

• Fusion Centers:
  • Established post-9/11 to share terrorism-related data among federal, state, and local agencies.
  • Effectiveness is debated; much data is still siloed or poorly correlated.
• DHS, FBI, ICE:
  • Use tools like Palantir in limited ways, mainly for immigration and terrorism cases (e.g., cross-referencing visa applications with criminal records).
• Private Partnerships:
  • Some agencies purchase bulk data from brokers (e.g., location data from phone apps), but systematic, legal, and technical hurdles remain for true integration.

Read the Whole Article

The post Palantir – Birth of the American Police State appeared first on LewRockwell.

A couple of months ago the following correspondence took place. I knew of course what sort of publication The New Yorker is, and based on the very first question I was certain that my name would be mentioned, no matter what. Hence, to forestall any possible misrepresentation, I decided to reply. But I refused to simply talk and insisted on doing things in writing so that I could later prove what was and wasn’t said.

Dear Professor Hoppe,

I’m a writer at The New Yorker who is working on a story about the political blogger Curtis Yarvin. Mr. Yarvin has described you to me as one of his biggest influences. I just finished reading Democracy: The God That Failed, and it is evident just how influential it has been on his work. I’d be grateful to speak with you for the story about your philosophy and its influence on the neoreactionary movement here in the United States. Are there some windows you might be free to speak this week?

With thanks,

Ava Kofman

Dear Mrs. Kofman,

I am aware that I had an influence on Yarvin and we also once briefly met several years ago. I have not followed his development closely since then. For my taste his writing has always been a bit too flowery and rambling.

As regards your request, I live in Europe, am a low-tech person and are currently ill in bed with some sort of flu. However I might be able to answer a couple of questions per email correspondence.

Sincerely

HHH

Dear Mr. Hoppe,

Thank you so much for you message. I hope you have recovered from your flu, and I’m sending here some questions for e-mail. Feel free to add or modify them as you see fit, of course!

1. I watched your recent lecturefrom March. Do you see any of your ideas about transforming the size and nature of the state playing out in contemporary initiatives like DOGE in the United States?
2. When did you first hear about Curtis Yarvin’s blog or read it? Where did you meet, and what was the meeting like?
3. Yarvin has called not just for an empowered sovereign, preferably a monarch, but a CEO-monarch. I was curious what you make of his use of Silicon Valley/start-up culture as a model for governance for a new reactionary libertarian regime: are there parts of that corporate model feel persuasive or unpersuasive to you?
4. I am curious if there’s anything else you’d like to add or reflect on vis-a-vis the rising influence of neo-reactionary thinkers like Yarvin here in the United States, and if there are factors to which you’d attribute their influence.

With many thanks, and all my best,

Ava

Dear Mrs Kofman,

I do not watch my own videos and don’t remember in detail what I said or didn’t say.

In any case, let me try to summarily answer your questions.

I do not see much progress in the direction that I would like to see. The greatest danger to freedom and prosperity in my view is the steadily increasing political centralization.  The possibility of decentralization, exit and secession are essential for the preservation of human liberty. Doge may eliminate a few silly, politically correct or woke excesses of an increasingly over-blown welfare state, but it does not even touch the core problem: total government expenditures and debt – the entire military-industrial complex – still continue to grow and rise without any interruption.

My ideal is a world made up of thousands upon thousands of Liechtensteins: small territories run by a monarch or member of the natural elite, with a long-run and established proprietary interest in his country (low time-preference), self-financed (not living himself of taxes), equipped with veto-power, difficult but not impossible to be removed from his position, and allowing subunits of his country to secede if they so desire. (google Liechtenstein constitution).

This is obviously something quite different from the idea of the Silicon valley crowd taking over the present government and running it like a business (which is something that some Trumpists seem to have in mind). But states, like the US, are stationary bandits, organizations founded and based on aggressive violence (taxes, expropriations and war). We would not want such types of organizations run efficiently, just as we would not want a concentration camp run efficiently. Rather, we would want them to disappear.

As I indicated before, I do not follow Yarvin’s writings closely – too much rambling for my taste. But whatever little I can gather, he does not make it sufficiently clear whether it is the Liechtenstein model or the Silicon valley crowd model that he advocates.

I was made aware of Yarvin and his mentioning me on his Unqualified Reservations blog by a friend, may be some 10 years ago or so, and I met him once at about that time. Peter Thiel had invited me to speak about the failure of democracy, the different incentive structures of owners versus renters or caretakers, time preference etc., (Thiel had obviously read my democracy book) and Yarvin was one of the participants of that small, exclusive gathering.

As for the “reactionary” part of your question: with that I essentially mean nothing more than a return to normality or normalcy: men are men, women are women, a normal family is father, mother and children, people and groups of people are different and have different abilities, you are responsible for your own life and actions, don’t blame others for your own failures and mistakes, be kind and polite, reward success and don’t or punish failure – yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions and not the rule. The absurdities, perversions and deviations from this normal state of affairs that we see all around us today are the result of the present, over-blown welfare state that allows all too many weirdos and crazies to lead a parasitic life at the expense of a steadily decreasing number of productive people. There would be no political correctness or woke-ism of the kind we see today in any small community. Its proponents would be shunned and ostracized, and relegated to some sort of hippie colonies. – Here, in this regard I see some progress. More and more people are fed up with the all-too-obvious nonsense propagated and promoted by the “progressive left.” Trump and the Silicon valley types – and Yarvin as one of their influencers – have certainly helped in this development, which is not nothing or to be belittled, but it is not much. And in any case, modesty, which is part of a decent person, a gentleman, is definitely not the world’s greatest “deal-maker’s” strength.

Hope this helps and with best wishes

HHH

Dear Mr. Hoppe,

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I agree that Yarvin’s work seems to toggle between the “patchwork” statelet vision you outline (of many Lichtensteins) and the Government as a Business. I fail to see how the all-powerful Sovereign Corporation he outlines would not simply raid other smaller “SovCorps.” I think I may have heard about the meeting or something along those lines. Was it after Trump’s election and at Thiel’s house in Los Angeles? Or at another time?

All my best, and thanks,

Ava

The meeting took place about a year before Trump’s first term at Thiel’s residence in San Francisco.

HHH

And here, then, is The New Yorker.

The post An Ego-Maniacal Writer’s Failed Attempt at Guilt by Association appeared first on LewRockwell.