Skip to main content

Lew Rockwell Institute

Condividi contenuti LewRockwell
Aggiornato: 4 ore 54 min fa

An Unraveling, Secession, or WWIII?

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

In a recent article, Alistair Crooke quotes former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas, who observes that Israel is in early stages of a civil war between the secular, modern Israel and the “Jewish-supremacist, ultranationalist” theocratic Israel.  The vision of Israel cherished by each side is very different, and each side is increasingly unable to grant the other legitimacy of argument.

Israel was and remains held together by fear and hate of a common enemy.   This condition is predictable for any nation at war, so predictable it leads to widely-accepted revisionist history that suggests politicians will indeed predictably seek war to prevent internal political collapse.

The current MICIMATT plans, outlines and demands a US-initiated war with Russia and China as the new normal.  Israel, to normalize itself as a Zionist “democracy,” requires constant and ultimately complete destruction of its non-Jewish neighbors and residents.  As national raison d’etre, living for war, which is to say, living for the state, is politically, economically and socially counterproductive.  To put it a different way, living for war, committing all you have to the health of the state, for most of us is a sure path to a Hobbesian life – solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Crooke draws a parallel to the early stages of civil war in the United States, a popular topic today among mainstream and independent media alike. Today, governors, attorneys general and secretaries of state continue to find new ways to express their sovereignty within the federation.   Societal and economic divisions between urban and rural America continue to grow and a great many people – on both sides of this division – increasingly refuse to obey government authorities, not because they are rugged individualists, but because they simply feel that their government is illegitimate.

States are leading the way – often with power in mind, rather than liberty.  California and New York are interested in acquiring continued tax revenues from those who have left the state.  This is nothing if not an expression of state power, an assertion of “their” laws on “their” citizens.  Whether these laws will ultimately conflict with the 14th Amendment, or other parts of the Constitution is not clear, but one wonders if soon, the federal Constitution will even be viewed as relevant.

Thomas Kuhn explained in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that paradigm shifts in science seem to occur out of nowhere; they appear revolutionary. But he shows that the death of paradigms is always preceded by small, slow, heavily criticized challenges to the status quo, punctuated by persistent and generally ridiculed rejections of the status quo, on and on, until “the whole world suddenly” wakes up to the now “obvious” fact that the old paradigm was wrong, inappropriate, and scientifically irrelevant.  The US Constitution as a document “holding the country together” is on this very path to irrelevancy today.

The recent catfight in the US Congress’s House Oversight Committee is a case in point.  Incompetent senior leaders in identical suits look on helplessly as the ruling class’s epidemic of self-centered petulance explodes over fashion choices and culturally creative insults. It could have been any day in America over the past 220 years, resolved in a duel between ideologues and enemies, as in 1804. A nationally televised cage match might be more suitable today than pistols, but the state hasn’t come very far, after all.

There is more disagreement in Congress about manners, fashion sense, and comportment than there is about philosophy of the state, the true nature of our republic, and the proper role of debt-funded warfare. The Greene-AOC-Crockett incident does give us a glimpse of the very real and calcified contempt felt by urban and rural districts for each other, and between politicized divisions within those congressional districts.

Instead of a duel over what Hamilton said about Burr, or the what Greene and Crockett said about each other, we may find far more is at stake.  Most Americans instinctively understand the decrepit and discredited House and Senate – what they see is a United States deep in late-stage unravelment.  Secessionary expression, and new paradigms of decentralization are within view, and palpable.

The only factors that unite Congress today are the Israel lobby and the defense industry – both of which peaked in performance well over 30 years ago, and became endemically lazy. Intellectually lazy, in choosing to label any and all critics as anti-Semitic or anti-American, rather than debate or defend; Physically lazy in focusing on short-term profits via expensive and unreliable offensive systems, and elimination of policy competition through targeted and corrupt lobbying of Congress and the state bureaucracy to achieve policy goals.

In a breath-taking move last week, Russia’s government assigned a civilian economist to oversee its defense department – perhaps to ensure that Russian defense capability and innovation do not follow the well-trodden American path of venerating and exaggerating past military successes and feeding on a long-bloated Pentagon corpse, courtesy of unlimited state creation of both “money” and “patriotism.”

Rather than take care of territory and people, engage citizens in a way that legitimizes the state, and ensure a kind of liberty of economy, speech and movement that builds value and brings people together – we see both the US and Israel focus intently on war, insatiably grow and exercise state power and cultivate multiple enemies to justify that power.  Martin Armstrong holds that republics are the worst form of government, because they always devolve into oligarchies.  Mencken described democracy’s arc a century in advance, ending with the White House “adorned by a perfect moron.”

It looks like the US and Israel have both arrived at their political dead end, and neither has the space, time or facility to get turned around.  Their governments are not trusted, nor are they feared.  Instead, they are domestically and internationally resented. Their populations are entropically divided, philosophically and economically.  Thus, for both the US and Israel, World War III becomes more attractive as a government solution to government problems.

Neoconservatives – who serve as the vanguard of the state – are indeed enthusiastic about global war.  In a time of war – or pseudo-war – people keep their heads down and mouths shut as the central state demands compliance with its decisions, which in our current era, are neoconservative decisions.

War is the health of the state, and it is the health of the neoconservative.

The unraveling has happened, and is accelerating.  The shocking NYT/WAPO headline screams “Lack of Interest in Knitting Leads to Fears the Unraveling Will Be Permanent!”  The centralized state, like an old sweater stretched beyond recognition and original function, is kindling and firestarter for a thousand smaller, more peaceful, more free, more productive and more humane societies.

The danger is not in secession from impossible states, like the constitutional US or the unconstituted Zionist “democracy” or even Ukraine as US satrap – the danger is what those states will do to avoid their own inevitable collapse.  We have ample evidence that each define the value of human life solely in terms of their own vanity and greed.  Each is interested in only in power, not justice.

Global nuclear war offers these governments, and their neoconservative advisors, something positive.  This paradigm — the neoconservative paradigm – is based on lies, driven by arrogance, hatred, and greed, and fundamentally illogical. It is a flawed paradigm we can easily challenge, cleanly reject, and actively eliminate.  Happily, most of the planet has already done so!

The post An Unraveling, Secession, or WWIII? appeared first on LewRockwell.

World War I Incited the Vampires

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

Commentaries about World War I frequently talk about causes and consequences but almost never mention the enablers.  At best, they might mention them approvingly, as if we were fortunate to have had the Fed and the income tax, along with the ingenuity of the Liberty Bond programs, to finance our glorious role in that bloodbath.

Economist Benjamin Anderson, whose Economics and the Public Welfare has contributed greatly to our understanding of the period 1914-1946, and is a book I highly recommend, nevertheless takes as a given that the Fed and income tax had a job to do, and that job was supporting U.S. entry into World War I.  After citing figures purporting to show how relatively restrained bank credit expansion was during the war, he writes:

We had to finance the Government with its four great Liberty Loans and its short-term borrowing as well. We had to transform our industries from a peace basis to a war basis. We had to raise an army of four million men and send half of them to France. We had to help finance our allies in the war, and above all, to finance the shipment of goods to them from the United States and from a good many neutral countries. [p. 35]

We had to do none of these things.

Only the government made them necessary, and the government was not acting on behalf of its constituents when it formally entered the war in April, 1917.  The U.S. was not under serious threat of attack.  The population at large, Ralph Raico tells us, “acquiesced, as one historian has remarked, out of general boredom with peace, the habit of obedience to its rulers, and a highly unrealistic notion of the consequences of America’s taking up arms.”  Later on he reports that

In the first ten days after the war declaration, only 4,355 men enlisted; in the next weeks, the War Department procured only one-sixth of the men required.

Bored with peace they may have been, but it was hardly reflected in the number of volunteers.  For more details about US response to the war see this.

Winners and Losers

While the war industries were poised to rake in record profits, Marine Major General Smedley Butler, who was awarded his second Congressional Medal of Honor in 1917, provides details of the fighting men’s share in this bonanza.  For the soldiers,

it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill . . . and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance — something the employer pays for in an enlightened state — and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all — he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back — when they came back from the war and couldn’t find work — at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

The “bonuses” awarded the veterans were silver certificates that came with a catch — although the men could borrow against them, they couldn’t redeem them until 1945(!).  When the Depression deepened in 1932, a so-called Bonus Army of veterans, family members, and friends marched on Washington to demand immediate payment of their promised compensation.  After a clash with police that left two protestors dead, General Douglas MacArthur led a tank assault that drove the Bonus Army out of Washington.

In 1936 the government decided to replace the silver certificates with Treasury bonds that could be redeemed immediately.

The Cunning Enabler

One could argue that the existence of states is the true enabler of hell on earth, since only states had entrenched systems of wealth predation and could employ kidnapping (conscription), propaganda, and other means to create a world war.

But is working for a stateless world a worthwhile use of one’s time?  If two and a half million veterans of the war to end all wars couldn’t get the government to pony up a bonus until 19 years after they paid stay-at-home bureaucrats, how could we possibly get rid of government itself?

Given that states have the power to wipe out all life on the planet, we should at least consider them an alien presence.  That they haven’t reduced the world to ashes already is not a sign of caring and careful leadership.  Combine their monopoly on legal force, nuclear arsenals, a rabid foreign policy, and monumental bureaucratic bungling, along with the steady hum of printing presses and withholding taxes, and you have a formula for turning Mother Earth into a moonscape.

If we can’t rid the earth of states, we can at least try to disempower them.  Whatever belligerent aspirations U.S. and other world leaders might have, they would be mere pipe-dreams without the wealth-sucking arms of the state.  States that can’t get money for war can’t go to war, or as Pat Buchanan might put it: No money, no war.

And if we had avoided WW I, what might the world look like today?


In a footnote to Rights of Man, Thomas Paine wrote:

It is scarcely possible to touch on any subject, that will not suggest an allusion to some corruption in governments.

Given his proposals for government involvement in our lives, modest though they were, Paine seems to have forgotten his own profound observation.

We would do well never to forget it.

The post World War I Incited the Vampires appeared first on LewRockwell.

Constant Killing

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

There are constants in this world — occurrences you can count on. Sunrises and sunsets. The tides. That, day by day, people will be born and others will die.

Some of them will die in peace, but others, of course, in violence and agony.

For hundreds of years, the U.S. military has been killing people. It’s been a constant of our history. Another constant has been American military personnel killing civilians, whether Native Americans, Filipinos, Nicaraguans, Haitians, Japanese, Koreans, VietnameseCambodians, Laotians, AfghansIraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, and on and on. And there’s something else that’s gone along with those killings: a lack of accountability for them.

Late last month, the Department of Defense (DoD) released its congressionally mandated annual accounting of civilian casualties caused by U.S. military operations globally. The report is due every May 1st and, in the latest case, the Pentagon even beat that deadline by a week. There was only one small problem: it was the 2022 report. You know, the one that was supposed to be made public on May 1, 2023. And not only was that report a year late, but the 2023 edition, due May 1, 2024, has yet to be seen.

Whether that 2023 report, when it finally arrives, will say much of substance is also doubtful. In the 2022 edition, the Pentagon exonerated itself of harming noncombatants. “DoD has assessed that U.S. military operations in 2022 resulted in no civilian casualties,” reads the 12-page document. It follows hundreds of years of silence about, denials of, and willful disregard toward civilians slain purposely or accidentally by the U.S. military and a long history of failures to make amends in the rare cases where the Pentagon has admitted to killing innocents.

Moral Imperatives

“The Department recognizes that our efforts to mitigate and respond to civilian harm respond to both strategic and moral imperatives,” reads the Pentagon’s new 2022 civilian casualty report.

And its latest response to those “moral imperatives” was typical. The Defense Department reported that it had made no ex gratia payments — amends offered to civilians harmed in its operations — during 2022. That follows exactly one payment made in 2021 and zero in 2020.

Whether any payments were made in 2023 is still, of course, a mystery. I asked Lisa Lawrence, the Pentagon spokesperson who handles civilian harm issues, why the 2023 report was late and when to expect it. A return receipt shows that she read my email, but she failed to offer an answer.

Her reaction is typical of the Pentagon on the subject.

2020 study of post-9/11 civilian casualty incidents by the Center for Civilians in Conflict and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute found that most went uninvestigated. When they did come under official scrutiny, American military witnesses were interviewed while civilians — victims, survivors, family members — were almost totally ignored, “severely compromising the effectiveness of investigations,” according to that report.

In the wake of such persistent failings, investigative reporters and human rights groups have increasingly documented America’s killing of civilians, its underreporting of noncombatant casualties, and its failures of accountability in AfghanistanLibyaSomaliaSyriaYemen, and elsewhere.

During the first 20 years of the war on terror, the U.S. conducted more than 91,000 airstrikes across seven major conflict zones and killed up to 48,308 civilians, according to a 2021 analysis by Airwars, a U.K.-based air-strike monitoring group.

Between 2013 and 2020, for example, the U.S. carried out seven separate attacks in Yemen — six drone strikes and one raid — that killed 36 members of the intermarried Al Ameri and Al Taisy families. A quarter of them were children between the ages of three months and 14 years old. The survivors have been waiting for years for an explanation as to why they were repeatedly targeted.

In 2018, Adel Al Manthari, a civil servant in the Yemeni government, and four of his cousins — all civilians — were traveling by truck when an American missile slammed into their vehicle. Three of the men were killed instantly. Another died days later in a local hospital. Al Manthari was critically injured. Complications resulting from his injuries nearly killed him in 2022. He beseeched the U.S. government to dip into the millions of dollars appropriated by Congress to compensate victims of American attacks, but they ignored his pleas. His limbs and life were eventually saved by the kindness of strangers via a crowdsourced GoFundMe campaign.

The same year that Al Manthari was maimed in Yemen, a U.S. drone strike in Somalia killed at least three, and possibly five, civilians, including 22-year-old Luul Dahir Mohamed and her 4-year-old daughter Mariam Shilow Muse. The next year, a U.S. military investigation acknowledged that a woman and child were killed in that attack but concluded that their identities might never be known. Last year, I traveled to Somalia and spoke with their relatives. For six years, the family has tried to contact the American government, including through U.S. Africa Command’s online civilian casualty reporting portal without ever receiving a reply.

In December 2023, following an investigation by The Intercepttwo dozen human rights organizations — 14 Somali and 10 international groups — called on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to compensate Luul and Mariam’s family for their deaths. This year, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representatives Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) have also called on the Defense Department to make amends.

2021 investigation by New York Times reporter Azmat Khan revealed that the American air war in Iraq and Syria was marked by flawed intelligence and inaccurate targeting, resulting in the deaths of many innocents. Out of 1,311 military reports analyzed by Khan, only one cited a “possible violation” of the rules of engagement. None included a finding of wrongdoing or suggested a need for disciplinary action, while fewer than a dozen condolence payments were made. The U.S.-led coalition eventually admitted to killing 1,410 civilians during the war in Iraq and Syria. Airwars, however, puts the number at 2,024.

Several of the attacks detailed by Khan were brought to the Defense Department’s attention in 2022 but, according to their new report, the Pentagon failed to take action. Joanna Naples-Mitchell, director of the nonprofit Zomia Center’s Redress Program, which helps survivors of American air strikes submit requests for compensation, and Annie Shiel, U.S. advocacy director with the Center for Civilians in Conflict, highlighted several of these cases in a recent Just Security article.

In June 2022, for instance, the Redress Program submitted requests for amends from the Pentagon on behalf of two families in Mosul, Iraq, harmed in an April 29, 2016, air strike reportedly targeting an Islamic State militant who was unharmed in the attack. Khan reported that, instead, Ziad Kallaf Awad, a college professor, was killed and Hassan Aleiwi Muhammad Sultan, then 10 years old, was left wheelchair-bound. The Pentagon had indeed admitted that civilian casualties resulted from the strike in a 2016 press release.

In September 2022, the Redress Program also submitted ex gratia requests on behalf of six families in Mosul, all of them harmed by a June 15, 2016, air strike also investigated by Khan. Naples-Mitchel and Shiel note that Iliyas Ali Abd Ali, then running a fruit stand near the site of the attack, lost his right leg and hearing in one ear. Two brothers working in an ice cream shop were also injured, while a man standing near that shop was killed. That same year, the Pentagon did confirm that the strike had resulted in civilian casualties.

However, almost eight years after acknowledging civilian harm in those Mosul cases and almost two years after the Redress Program submitted the claims to the Defense Department, the Pentagon has yet to offer amends.

Getting to “Yes”

While the U.S. military has long been killing civilians — in massacres by ground troopsair strikes and even, in August 1945, nuclear attacks — compensating those harmed has never been a serious priority.

General John “Black Jack” Pershing did push to adopt a system to pay claims by French civilians during World War I and the military in World War II found that paying compensation for harm to civilians “had a pronounced stabilizing effect.” The modern military reparations system, however, dates only to the 1960s.

During the Vietnam War, providing “solatia” was a way for the military to offer reparations for civilian injuries or deaths caused by U.S. operations without having to admit any guilt. In 1968, the going rate for an adult life was $33. Children merited just half that.

In 1973, a B-52 Stratofortress dropped 30 tons of bombs on the Cambodian town of Neak Luong, killing hundreds of civilians and wounding hundreds more. The next of kin of those killed, according to press reports, were promised about $400 each. Considering that, in many cases, a family’s primary breadwinner had been lost, the sum was low. It was only the equivalent of about four years of earnings for a rural Cambodian. By comparison, a one-plane sortie, like the one that devastated Neak Luong, cost about $48,000. And that B-52 bomber itself then cost about $8 million. Worse yet, a recent investigation found that the survivors did not actually receive the promised $400. In the end, the value American forces placed on the dead of Neak Luong came to just $218 each.

Back then, the United States kept its low-ball payouts in Cambodia a secret. Decades later, the U.S. continues to thwart transparency and accountability when it comes to civilian lives.

In June 2023, I asked Africa Command to answer detailed questions about its law-of-war and civilian-casualty policies and requested interviews with officials versed in such matters. Despite multiple follow-ups, Courtney Dock, the command’s deputy director of public affairs, has yet to respond. This year-long silence stands in stark contrast to the Defense Department’s trumpeting of new policies and initiatives for responding to civilian harm and making amends.

In 2022, the Pentagon issued a 36-page Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, written at the direction of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. The plan provides a blueprint for improving how the Pentagon addresses the subject. The plan requires military personnel to consider potential harm to civilians in any air strike, ground raid, or other type of combat.

Late last year, the Defense Department also issued its long-awaited “Instruction on Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response,” which established the Pentagon’s “policies, responsibilities, and procedures for mitigating and responding to civilian harm.” The document, mandated under the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, and approved by Austin, directs the military to “acknowledge civilian harm resulting from U.S. military operations and respond to individuals and communities affected by U.S. military operations,” including “expressing condolences” and providing ex gratia payments to next of kin.

But despite $15 million allocated by Congress since 2020 to provide just such payments and despite members of Congress repeatedly calling on the Pentagon to make amends for civilian harm, it has announced just one such payment in the years since.

Naples-Mitchel and Shiel point out that the Defense Department has a projected budget of $849.8 billion for fiscal year 2025 and the $3 million set aside annually to pay for civilian casualty claims is just 0.00035% of that sum. “Yet for the civilians who have waited years for acknowledgment of the most painful day of their lives, it’s anything but small,” they write. “The military has what it needs to begin making payments and reckoning with past harms, from the policy commitment, to the funding, to the painstaking requests and documentation from civilian victims. All they have to do now is say yes.”

On May 10th, I asked Lisa Lawrence, the Pentagon spokesperson, if the U.S. would say “yes” and if not, why not.

“Thank you for reaching out,” she replied. “You can expect to hear from me as soon as I have more to offer.”

Lawrence has yet to “offer” anything.

Reprinted with permission from

The post Constant Killing appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Crimes of Nuremberg

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

A philosophy major, communications major, and history major walk into a campus bar. The philosophy major orders three bourbons, and asks the communications major why he chose communications. “I want to be able to communicate effectively with others. I believe effective communication limits conflict and…” The philosophy major cuts him off by asking the history major the same question. “I believe nothing is more important than history, because if we don’t learn our history, then we’re doomed to…” Before he can finish, the philosophy major turns to the bartender and says, “Make it three doubles.” The bartender reaches for the bottle to top up their drinks and asks, “What’s your major then?” The philosophy major looks at the other three and says, “Psychology.”

You wouldn’t get it.

— Arthur Fleck

Rekneading Grey Matter

Calling for a Nuremberg 2 has been all the rage for the past few years. The term is often trending on social media for days. Unfortunately, the calls for a second installment have been made by a thoroughly programmed, historically brainwashed Western populace, running public schooling software infected with Hollywood-scripted malware.

Your humble fluffy Ram scribe (brain still running Commodore software) called for a second Nuremberg in early 2022, before a dedicated debugging operation that required digging into history books published before the 1990s. The lies of the past twenty years, particularly the past five, prompted a curiosity tour that begged the question, “Did they just start lying about everything twenty years ago?” The quest invariably resulted in some version of, “Not twenty years ago, but more likely two thousand years ago.”

But let’s leave classical and early civilizational history for another time and stick to the past century, particularly the most significant historical event—the war that still leads to heated debates around the actions of “our side” and the moral and ethical inconsistencies used to justify horrific acts against civilian populations and unarmed combatants in the post-war years, transgressing the Geneva Conventions while making a mockery of any judicial process at Nuremberg.

I am not taking up the defense of Germany. I am taking up the defense of the truth. I do not know if the truth exists, and many people have made arguments to prove to me that it does not. But I know that lies exist. I know that systematic deformation of facts exists. We have lived for three years with a falsification of history. This falsification is skillful. It involves fantasies based on a conspiracy of imagined fantasies. …me, I believe stupidly in the truth. I even believe that it ends up triumphing over all.

— Maurice Bardèche

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten.”

The 1990s was a transformative period for the information and communications industries. The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 monopolized the radio, and television airwaves, leaving just five corporate conglomerates controlling all information by the end of the century.

Around this time the English language publishing monopolies of New York and London began blacklisting any manuscripts or authors (think David Irving) that exposed the prevailing propaganda and criminal cover-up of Allied behavior during the second world war while revealing that certain atrocities had been astronomically inflated—a fact later disclosed with some courageous inquiry by brave individuals after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even before this time many authors, historians, academics, and public figures had been imprisoned across Europe for daring to ask any questions about the official narrative of events.

Revisiting the timeline of historical revisionism around World War 2 atrocities is an exhausting undertaking, and worthy of a dedicated lengthy post. (See The Unz Review’s American Pravda series in the meantime) One could argue the revisionism began right away against the truth, and the “conspiracy” revisionists are seeking the truth that was buried by the real revisionists.

For those who believe national loyalties and ideology are irrelevant in service of truth, it’s an essential undertaking to revisit the revised revisionism. It generally requires one to dig into the most honest and accurate accounts of events. These are most often produced when memories are still fresh, first-hand witnesses are still living, and state or tribal propaganda, myths, and fabricated atrocities have yet to flourish and take root in the public consciousness. The books that represent these ideal conditions for truth were published in the first decades after the war. This is also when the first blacklistings and book bannings began.

One French author, in particular, dared expose the crimes of post-war Allied occupation of Europe in 1948 in the book Nuremberg or The Promised Land, before lies were cemented as truths. He was the first ‘truther’ (his own words to describe what he cared about most) to expose the sham trials at Nuremberg, the crimes of the Allies including France, and the atrocity propaganda around “Jewish extermination” attributed to the Nazis which is still a crime to question in 19 European countries to this day.

Maurice Bardèche’s Wikipravda page reads as you’d expect of someone who worked as a Professor under the German occupation and was a supporter of Francisco Franco, co-authoring a book on the Spanish Civil War and founding the “revisionist school” in the post-war years.

One of the absurd charges made by France at Nuremberg and other trials was that the Germans had tried to exterminate the French, or had “a will to exterminate the French.” Bardèche exposes this absurdity using logic, reason, and facts. His anger in this assertion and other lies produced by the French government rests with the fact that it would allow a future German historian to show that France lied, thereby tainting his nation and all Frenchmen.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Crimes of Nuremberg appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Conflict in Ukraine: How Do Matters Stand?

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

I have tried to provide accurate analysis of the conflict in Ukraine. This is not a simple task as there is little publicly available information about how the Kremlin sees the widening of the conflict. France has sent troops. The US Secretary of Defense said that eventually NATO troops will be deployed to Ukraine, and European governments are preparing for war with Russia in 4 or 5 years.

Putin’s original goals were the liberation of the Donbas region, and denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. How denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine were to be accomplished without the conquest of Ukraine was never clear.

The appearance of long-range missiles, that is, missiles whose reach extends beyond the battlefield into Russia, resulted in statements from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Russia would have to compensate for the missiles reach by taking more of Ukraine in order to create a buffer zone. As the missiles the West sends keep lengthening in range, the consequence is that the buffer zone keeps enlarging and the entirety of Ukraine will have to be conquered and occupied and a Russian-friendly government installed in Ukraine. Already there are reports of Ukrainian drone attacks on Tatarstan in central Russia one thousand kilometers from the front line in Ukraine. Clearly the conflict is not a limited military operation.

Whether Putin understands that his “limited military operation” is no longer practical is unclear.

The Ukrainian Army has been defeated. More mobilization will only result in a higher Ukrainian death toll. So where does the conflict go from here?

I suspect the Russian military will bypass Kharkov and leave it surrounded and cut off. The remains of the Ukrainian military is likely to reposition on the west bank of the Dnieper River. Russia, if the Kremlin ever becomes serious about the conflict, will take Odessa unless US/NATO occupy Odessa first.

The question is whether this would bring an end to the conflict or would Western Ukraine fill up with NATO forces in order to maintain a hostile regime toward Russia. If the latter, the conflict ceases to be between Ukraine and Russia and becomes one of the West and Russia. Putin would have rescued the Russian territories, but Ukraine would remain militarized. This time with US/NATO.

The Kremlin’s failure to act decisively in the beginning will have left Russia with a festering problem.

Washington will further stress Putin with attempted color revolution in Georgia, like Ukraine a former Russian province. A successful color revolution would allow Washington to open a second front against Russia.

A color revolution in Georgia is Washington’s intent. The Georgian legislature recently passed the Transparency of Foreign Influence Act. The legislation would require Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) engaged in promoting the interests of a foreign power to disclose their donors.

Apparently, the legislature waited too long to face up to the threat. The foreign financed entities were able to put protesters in the streets of the capital for weeks and succeeded in pressuring the Georgian president into vetoing the bill. The government backed away from an earlier attempt in 2023 to pass the bill when confronted by street protests.

The Biden regime said the legislation “undermines democracy,” and the EU said it would block Georgia’s entrance into the European Union. Of course, Georgia is not in Europe and has no business in the EU. Clearly, Washington and Brussels’ interest in a bill pertaining to Georgia’s internal affairs indicates that the legislation is understood as prevention against a color revolution and that the West intends such a revolution. Washington is offering preferential trade treatment if Georgia will leave itself open to overthrow.

The prime minister of Georgia says the country needs the foreign agents law in order to protect Georgia from external forces that want to launch a “Georgian Maidan.” One wonders if Putin again will stand aside and allow Washington to bring him more troubles.

Washington used Georgia against Russia in 2008 when Georgian troops invaded South Ossetia resulting in intervention by the Russian military. A successful color revolution would open a second front, or a replacement front, against Russia. There is no indication that the West intends to cease its provocations of Russia.

that the provocations have reached such a reckless and dangerous level that Russia is undergoing military exercises practicing the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe against NATO.

Putin was forced to intervene in Donbas. He attempted to limit the intervention to Donbas, but the West insisted on widening the war. The war has now widened to the point that Russia is preparing, should the need arise, to wipe out US/NATO military capability in Europe.

Doctorow is not confident that the West will come to its senses. Neither am I.

The post The Conflict in Ukraine: How Do Matters Stand? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Unifying Principle: Here’s Why the Political Divisions in the US Today Cannot Be Mended

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

Recently I was watching a short documentary about the history of political discourse and division in the US and it got me thinking about how the internal conflicts of the past might relate to the rampant social battles Americans are dealing with today. From early disagreements between various Founding Fathers on hot button issues like the Sedition Act, central banking and standing armies, to epic and disastrous conflagrations like the Civil War, America has never been “of one mind” on everything.

Overall, though, the longstanding assumption is that even when we slip and fall into disarray Americans will find common ground and move on towards the future together.  It’s a nice sentiment, but what if this ideal no longer applies?

There are some people that argue there was never a golden era for the US; that we’ve always been destructive, or exploitative or “imperialist.” Of course, it’s very easy to examine any given time period through the lens of modern sensibilities and pass judgment. How we would do things today is not necessarily how we would do things yesterday. We can’t easily condemn the men and women of the past without at least recognizing that we will probably never see the issues of their day from their perspective.

The political left is the most egregious violator of this principle. They have a bad habit of trying to rewrite history according to their current ideological cultism and applying their taboos to time periods when civilization had very different views on how to function. The progressive philosophy is partially rooted in “futurism”; the idea that all old ideas and ways of doing things must be abandoned to make way for new methods. In other words, they think everything “new” is better and must be embraced.

Frankly, this theory has never proven correct. Not every old idea should be left behind and not every new method is better. In fact, most ideas that leftists think are new are actually very old. There’s nothing ground breaking about DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), it’s just another form of Marxism based on personal identity rather than the traditional class politics.

Do you want to know what DEI really is? It’s a vehicle for forced association.

Forced association is used to leverage populations into a homogeneous soup, a hive mind with no individual thought or right to discriminate against destructive groups and ideologies.  But if America is experiencing an agenda of forced association today then we have to ask – What is there to be gained?  Why pressure people who fundamentally disagree with each other on every level to coexist within a society? Why do the people in power want this so badly?

Well, for the central planners (usually socialists/globalists), tribalism is a big no-no. People going their own way is unacceptable. If the populace thinks they can divide and separate and live differently from each other, then how can the establishment continue to exist? For a one-world government to be achieved ALL divisions must be erased and everyone has to either love or fear the purveyors of “unity.”

Separation must, therefore, be demonized.  The problem is, there’s no way to blackmail a population into association, not in the long term anyway.  A group is an abstraction without form; it means nothing until the individuals involved share a unifying principle.  When I look back at political disagreements in history I find that there is a vital factor that existed during past conflicts that does NOT exist today.

Even during the worst of times including the Civil War both sides of the division held the same basic principles and morals. They had a lot of the same values, a shared religion and a shared understanding of reality. They were people connected by the same American soul, they merely disagreed on singular issues. The goal for each side was for America and its fundamental heritage to survive, even if they didn’t always obey every aspect of the Constitution or the existing leadership at the time. This is not how things work in 2024.

In terms of surface level politics its obvious that there will never be peaceful reconciliation between woke progressives and conservatives/independents. One side or the other has to go, and I think the majority of people in the US want leftists to go.

To be clear I’m not saying that all people on the political left are exactly the same. There’s definitely a political spectrum from traditional liberals to extreme activists. But there is no denying that, for now, woke zealots control the levers of power and influence within the Democratic Party and the leftist media. They also have the explicit backing of every major institution from corporations to NGOs to government.

You don’t see a whole lot of average Democrats with the guts to stand up and criticize their own side even when they know there’s something very wrong happening. They go along with the program either out of laziness or fear. With conservatives the reverse is true. Conservatives can’t seem to organize a damn thing because we constantly disagree with each other when it comes to solutions.

And let’s not forget the fence riders out there. It’s sure nice to always be out of the fray and in the rear with the gear while pretending as if you’re “above it all.” That’s a very comfortable place to be because it allows a person to avoid risk while appearing as if they’re taking the high road. Much like a slippery academic who never defines his position in a debate so that he can change his arguments on a whim.

The issue is that, even though fence riders don’t want to admit it, there are times when one side is right and one side is utterly wrong. Sometimes there is no middle ground.

A lot of moderates are finally waking up to the horrors of the collectivist movements in our midst. Maybe it was the pandemic lockdowns or the attempted trans indoctrination of children or the unhinged nature of far-left activists in the streets but somewhere along the way moderates finally realized conservatives were RIGHT all along about a lot of things. We were fighting to save their freedoms years ago while they were acting cool and wondering what all the fuss was about.

There are a lot of factors that set conservatives (and a many moderates) apart from the political left, but the core disconnect is so deep and disturbing it’s hard to quantify. I can only summarize it down to this:

1) The unifying principle of the left is deconstruction. They find their meaning or purpose in the act of tearing down and destroying what other people have built.

2) The unifying principle for conservatives is to build and protect what has been found to work.

Humanity’s best bet for success is liberty with responsibility, free markets and meritocracy. All things we are trying to preserve, and all things that leftists want to blow up.

For progressives the most important question is: What happens when they’ve destroyed the last edifice? What comes next? If dismantling systems is their unifying principle what will they do when they have nothing else to dismantle? What happens when every plate in the china shop is broken? They are incapable of creating a new and functional society so they would need an outside foundation.

In this regard I set globalists apart from typical leftists. Globalists are indeed leftists at their core but they are also builders, and not in a good way. Globalists don’t build societies, they build prisons. Once the useful idiots on the left have finished the job of deconstructing America the globalists plan to come in with a new ideal, a new religion, a new foundation based on worshiping THEM.

Here is where we find the greatest split of all – The spiritual nature of our impasse.

Liberty can indeed be a unifying principle, but it has to be freedom combined with wisdom and moral compass.  Meaning, liberty alone is not enough.

I’ve definitely never been one to promote the concept of theocracy and I have many scruples when it comes to “Earthly” religious organizations. Anything governed by men can be corrupted. But I also accept that America was built by a majority Christian society following integral Christian values. I don’t think every American needs to be Christian. The Founding Fathers understood that religious freedom is essential. But we must acknowledge and embrace the fact that the country works best when Christianity is at the forefront.  At least there is a unifying moral code to hold the framework together.

Furthermore, it would be far easier to reconcile Christian social systems with science and critical thinking than it will be to reconcile freedom loving Americans with far-left collectivists. The woke cult is much more hostile to science today than Christians are; they even refuse to acknowledge human biology.  I also think Christianity is growing along with newer generations of conservatives with a greater respect for skepticism.  We could see a renaissance following the paths set by great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis.

I’m seeing a lot of the old blind devotion to the Republican Party fall by the wayside and a greater focus on what politicians achieve rather than what they promise. I’m seeing people on the right embrace the value of comedy and pop culture more, which has always been a problem for conservatives. And, I’m seeing science open doors to religious thought instead of trying to close them. As humanity delves deeper into quantum physics, cosmology and even the mind sciences, our relationship to the great beyond requires consideration of the physical AND the metaphysical.

It’s the kind of thing that would make progressives rage and foam at the mouth.  For them, science must always be in service to their causes or it ceases to have value, and one of their primary causes is the erasure of Christianity.  They’ll never allow a world where science and religion work together to build a future in which discovery is balanced with ethical responsibility.

Then there is the issue of moral imperative.  Many of us see the targeting of children for indoctrination and exploitation.  We see the promotion of subjective reality and degeneracy.  We see the inclination towards lies as a tool for political power.  We see leftists caring more about winning and less about the truth.

For the globalists and the woke mob morality is nothing more than a social construct, but we know that these ideas are inborn and inherent for the majority of people. If they weren’t, humanity would have gone extinct ages ago from self destruction. Leftists don’t agree with the concept of a basic moral code. Leftists don’t even agree that morals are a necessity. They think they can manifest their own reality from thin air. How can we possibly live side-by-side with people who despise every pillar that holds western civilization together?

The answer is – We can’t.  For now I see no path to peace.  Peace would require a unifying principle, a mutual respect, and that does not exist.

Reprinted with permission from

The post The Unifying Principle: Here’s Why the Political Divisions in the US Today Cannot Be Mended appeared first on LewRockwell.

Covid Conspiracy Fact: Vindication Is Bittersweet

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

The so-called Covid “Conspiracy Theories” are collapsing one after another in courts of law and we can call most of them a Covid Conspiracy Fact. The actual disinformation came from those screaming the loudest about the rest of us providing disinformation.

While this is great news, what about all the lives that were ruined during 2020-2021 by fallacies that were accepted as fact? What about those who lost their businesses or jobs? What about those who were unjustly fired or fined? What about the people who died or suffered lifelong aftereffects?

I guess we’re all just SOL. (s*** out of luck).

As the truth finally seeps out, the vindication is somewhat bittersweet.

Conspiracy Fact: The vaccines were dangerous.

First things first, the vaccines that were rushed to market were dangerous – so much so that two of them have been taken off the market. Johnson & Johnson was the first to be removed for causing blood clots in susceptible persons. Personally – and it’s just an opinion – I thought the J&J, which was the only one available in the US that did NOT contain MRNA technology, was probably the least harmful of all. I felt at the time it was removed in order to get more people on board with mRNA.

Recently, Astra Zeneca’s vaccines were withdrawn all over the world, a move the company said was “purely commercial.” However, the move came after a major court battle in England found that the vax, called Vaxzevria, was causing severe health problems in some users. (Emphasis mine.)

Vaxzevria has come under intense scrutiny in recent months over a very rare side effect, which causes blood clots and low blood platelet counts. AstraZeneca admitted in court documents lodged with the High Court in February that the vaccine “can, in very rare cases, cause TTS”.

TTS – which stands for Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome – has been linked to at least 81 deaths in the UK as well as hundreds of serious injuries. AstraZeneca is being sued by more than 50 alleged victims and grieving relatives in a High Court case.

Most of the vaccines were approved on an “emergency basis” with mRNA technologies not previously tested on or used in humans. People were required to get these experimental shots to keep their jobs, attend school, fly on a plane, or leave the country despite a lack of testing, a questionable level of effectiveness, and potential side effects.

So now that the truth is coming out, what happens to all those folks who refused to get a shot and lost work? What about those who were injured from the vaccines? What about the people who died from the vaccines?

Conspiracy Fact: The economy was destroyed.

When America locked down, we didn’t just have a destroyed economy because people couldn’t work or run their businesses. We also went deeply deeply in debt – even worse than before – when the government sent out “stimulus checks.” Of course, folks didn’t realize they’d be taxed on those checks at a later date and it put our nation so far in the red that a healthy economy is a very distant memory.

The lost income saw individuals go further into personal debt too, as they used their credit cards for necessities like groceries and utility bills. Homes were lost to foreclosure or eviction and vehicles were lost to repossession, though not immediately due to laws that placed a moratorium on such actions. Due to supply chain problems, the prices of everything went up and it’s never gone down.

It turned our way of life upside down, and there hasn’t been a notable economic recovery. Interest rates are incredibly high right now, making it far more difficult to buy homes and cars.

While small businesses were forced by mandates to close or face serious penalties, somehow, big chain stores like Walmart and CVS were places where you apparently couldn’t catch Covid. They were allowed to remain open, and with the lack of competition, these businesses thrived.

Now that we know many of these causes shouldn’t have happened, will people get their homes back? Will they get their vehicles back that they need for getting to and from work? Will savings accounts be replenished and credit scores repaired?

Conspiracy Fact: Ivermectin really worked.

One of the effective treatments for Covid for folks who fell ill was Ivermectin, a medication that was a Nobel prize winner back when it was first invented. The medication was relentlessly mocked as “horse paste,” and those who wanted to take it were scorned as ignorant rubes. In fact, the hospitals flatly refused to treat people with ivermectin and pharmacies refused to fill valid prescriptions.

In his book War on Ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory wrote:

In the wake of the global horse-dewormer propaganda campaign, hospitals started pulling ivermectin from their pharmacies. Health systems began harassing and threatening employees with loss of employment if they prescribed ivermectin. Pharmacies became even more brazen in their refusals to fill ivermectin prescriptions.

Doctors who stubbornly followed the actual science and prescribed the drug were publicly shamed, and some even lost their medical licenses. CVS made billions of dollars giving Covid vaccinations and performing tests.

But now, court cases have been won that have forced the FDA to end its war on Ivermectin. Hydroxychloroquine was also derided but has since been validated as effective.

What about all the people who died and might have lived with that treatment? What about the people who are permanently injured from a bout of Covid that could have been cut short? What about the folks who were publicly maligned?

My biggest takeaway here is that we absolutely must find doctors who don’t care about their public images and who will prescribe the medications we need for as long as is legally possible. That’s why I use The Wellness Company for my care and why I have one of these Contagion Kits for each member of my household. I have little doubt that at some point these medications may become illegal to prescribe, so I want to stock up ahead of that time.

Conspiracy Fact: People were financially and socially punished for questioning the narrative.

People who questioned the narrative were subject to terrible harassment and financial consequences. The mistreatment and dehumanization of the unvaccinated was shocking. Many websites like mine were defunded for providing “misinformation” and maligned for adding context from both sides of the argument. Other websites were purged from social media for the same things. In fact, social media companies vowed to be complicit in the censorship.

A lot of alternative news websites ended up closing down in 2020 because the financial punishments were so harsh they couldn’t keep their doors open. Others lost thousands and thousands of dollars per month.

We were called crazy and paranoid when we said that this was a First Amendment issue and that the government was involved. But again, in court, we were vindicated when it was proven that the government did in fact help fund these agencies that attempted to censor and discredit us.

So what about us? What about all that lost revenue? All the lost traffic? All the lost credibility and the defamation of our character?

There’s no recourse.

Unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) to pay attorneys, there’s really no recourse for most of these abuses that took place.

All we can do is learn from this. A conspiracy theory often becomes a conspiracy fact, especially when it causes you to lose rights.

The Conspiracy Fact I take away from it all is that it’s very naive to believe that our government and the media are looking out for our health, safety, and well-being. They’re supporting corporations, not individuals, and they’ll willfully lie, maim, and destroy people to do it. We look back in horror at psychological experiments that were done on children and the experiments that gave syphilis to black men. We’re shocked by the CIA’s own paperwork explaining the MKUltra mind control project.

But we all just faced a psy-op of the highest order on the grandest scale ever known.

And I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that those who were involved learned from their mistakes. Nor do I think they feel duly chastised or guilty. They’ll do it again and be better at it. History won’t look back kindly on 2020.

Reprinted with permission from The Organic Prepper.

The post Covid Conspiracy Fact: Vindication Is Bittersweet appeared first on LewRockwell.

Biden Brags About Raising Taxes

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

This week Peter’s back to discuss new economic data, Powell’s recent remarks in the Netherlands, and the Biden administration’s new tariffs. More and more signs point to economic stagflation, but Biden, Powell, and their cronies continue to deflect the blame and increase everyday Americans’ taxes.

The Dow may have traded above 40,000 this week, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Americans are wealthier:

“Inflation creates an illusion of prosperity, an illusion of wealth. That’s another reason that government loves inflation so much. They’re really partners. The government derives all sorts of hidden benefits from inflation, but it never wants to admit this. It never wants to say this out loud. But everything the government does is supported by inflation. … They kind of worship inflation, but they never speak its name— not in the context of what they’re using it for, right? And so when the public gets upset that prices are rising a lot and their living standards are falling, then the government will talk about inflation. But it’ll talk about it as if it’s this exogenous event that is completely beyond their control.”

Contrary to what progressives believe, inflation is not a result of capitalism:

“Everything is more expensive because of the government debasement of our money. That’s why we have inflation. It’s not an accident, and it’s not a natural byproduct of capitalism. Capitalism does the reverse! I’ve pointed this out, but the CPI from 1800 to 1900 lost 50% of its value. Prices fell for a hundred years! That’s what capitalism does. Now in the following hundred years, prices skyrocketed. That’s what socialism does. That’s what government does. That’s what central banking does.”

Wednesday’s inflation report was not as bad as expected, although rising prices in industrial metals beg to differ:

“As everybody is talking about, ‘Hey, we got this great inflation news,’ copper is telling you that inflation is not good. It’s bad. So I’d rather believe the market than the Fed telling us inflation is under control. … Look at copper— “Dr. Copper”— it’s telling you that inflation is anything but under control.”

New data on retail sales, manufacturing, and housing permits all point towards a slowdown in the economy:

“That’s the sign of a weaker economy. Why are they building fewer homes? Because Americans can’t afford to buy them. They don’t have the purchasing power, and mortgage rates have gone up. But of course, if we’re not going to be adding to the supply of houses, then the housing shortage is going to continue.”

Peter pivots to tariffs, the big political news of the week:

“[Biden’s] announcing them like he’s delivering good news, like, ‘Hey, I got great news, everybody! We’ve got these tariffs.’ The tariffs are taxes! Higher tariffs mean higher taxes. … Who wants to hear that? And these are not, ‘Oh, we’re going to tax the rich.’ No, no, these are not the taxes that fall on the rich. In fact, the rich couldn’t care less about these tariffs. It’s the middle class or the poor that are going to pay these tariffs. And that’s Biden’s base, right? That’s who he’s playing to. That’s the votes that he wants. And he’s telling his own people of raising your taxes, except he’s not putting it in those words. He’s lying.”

The new tariffs are a textbook case of government regulation contradicting other government regulations. None of it makes any sense:

“Biden likes to pretend, ‘Oh, we’re all about the environment. We want people to go solar.’ 50% tariffs on solar panels— 50% percent! People are supposed to be converting to solar. You know, there’s all kinds of tax credits. You invest in solar panels, you get a tax credit. So the government is subsidizing people for using solar power. Tesla gets subsidies for selling battery powered cars. The government is paying Americans, and they’re trying to encourage them to use solar power. Yet we now want to impose taxes on them when they do it. You want to buy solar panels? Now the government is going to drive up the price of the very panels it’s subsidizing you to buy. … Government has two policies at cross purposes.”

Jerome Powell spoke in Amsterdam this week and gave an alarming look into his naivete:

“Powell basically said, ‘No, I have no regrets, nothing. I wouldn’t change anything. We did everything right.’ … If that’s truly what Powell believes, then there’s no hope of them solving any problems that they clearly don’t understand. Powell has no idea where inflation comes from. So how is he going to get rid of it?”

The simple fact is that the economy is too complicated for any man or institution to plan. Tariffs, central banking, and tax credits only serve to distort and manipulate economic incentives for the interests of those in power. Powell and Biden illustrate this perfectly.

Originally published on

The post Biden Brags About Raising Taxes appeared first on LewRockwell.

If You Can’t Even Elect A Candidate Who’ll End A Genocide, How Real Is Your ‘Democracy?

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

The Biden administration has reportedly approved of an Israeli assault on Rafah, the last slightly safe city in the Gaza Strip, and is openly preparing to work with Congress to punish the International Criminal Court for seeking arrest warrants of Israeli officials for war crimes. Biden is a monster who belongs in a cell at The Hague.

I talk about Biden’s criminality a lot, but I should probably clarify that I don’t do so because I believe Trump or even Kennedy would be acting any kinder toward the people of Gaza if they were president. All three of the arguably viable US presidential candidates are virulent Zionists who have all made it clear that they would back Israel’s genocidal atrocities with adamant fervor.

A lot of fuss gets made over the west’s brand of democracy. Wars of aggression have been waged under the banner of spreading it throughout the world and allowing the people to control what their government will do. But what you very seldom see discussed in mainstream discourse is the fact that there are a great many issues that this form of so-called democracy never allows the people to vote on.

The genocide in Gaza is arguably the single most urgent matter in the world right now — partly for how horrific it is in and of itself, and partly for its potential to explode into wars which would bring far greater devastation to the region. But nobody’s allowed a vote on whether this will continue or not, even in the heart of the US empire which is making it all possible.

The only candidates who stand any chance of getting elected are all committed to making sure this mass atrocity continues, because if you ever want to get anywhere near the presidency you have to make a whole lot of deals with powerful forces who were never elected by anybody.

And this just says so much about the nature of this “democracy” — a word which literally means “rule by the people”. If the people were actually in charge, there would be some option available to them to end the worst thing happening in the world right now. But the people are not in charge. When it comes to matters of the most importance, they never get a vote.

Americans don’t get a vote on whether or not vast fortunes should be poured into funding a war machine which stretches around the globe; the option is never on the ballot.

They don’t get to vote on whether or not the drastic action needed to prevent environmental collapse should be taken.

They don’t get to vote on whether or not the US empire should be escalating against nuclear-armed nations like Russia and China with ever-increasing aggression.

They don’t get to vote on whether the wealthy should be getting richer and richer while the poor have to struggle harder and harder to survive.

They don’t get to vote on whether the wealthy should be allowed to use their wealth to influence political affairs in a way that gives them more and more wealth and power.

They don’t get to vote on whether they should have their minds pummeled with empire propaganda 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year by rich and powerful people who are invested in manipulating the way they think, act, vote, shop and work.

They don’t get to vote on whether their police force should be getting more and more militarized, or whether the surveillance practices of the US intelligence cartel should be getting more and more intrusive.

They don’t get to vote on whether the US should have the highest incarceration rate in the world and the profoundly unjust legal system which gives rise to it.

They don’t get to vote on whether the internet should be getting more and more consolidated and censorship-heavy as Silicon Valley megacorporations move into more and more collaborative relationships with the US government.

They don’t get to vote on whether there should be billionaires when there are people living on the streets.

They don’t get to vote on whether their government should be encircling the planet with hundreds of military bases and working to destroy any nation which disobeys it while their own people struggle and suffer at home.

If you want to vote on something the powerful don’t care about, there’s a possibility that your vote might have some sway. You might have some tiny degree of influence over women’s reproductive rights, for example, or whether or not gay people can get married. But when it comes to the mechanisms of the imperial machine like war, militarism, propaganda, oligarchy, capitalism or authoritarianism, your hand will get smacked away the instant you move to touch them.

So it’s not really democracy then, is it? It’s not really rule by the people if all the most important and consequential decisions are made by forces with no accountability to the electorate, while the people are confined to a toddler’s playpen in the corner arguing about pronouns and fatphobia.

And what really sucks is that so many people believe this is freedom and democracy. The people will never know freedom until they first understand how profoundly unfree they really are.


My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to find video versions of my articles. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post If You Can’t Even Elect A Candidate Who’ll End A Genocide, How Real Is Your ‘Democracy? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Is Anyone Else’s Life as Stupidly Complicated by Digital ‘Shadow Work’ as Mine Is?

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

We seem to have entered a world of anti-leisure and anti-productivity in which the unpaid “shadow work” demanded to keep all the complicated digital bits in motion obliterate our leisure and productivity.

Is your life as stupidly complicated as mine is? Of course it is unless you’ve withdrawn from all engagement with the digital realm and all devices containing digital components.

To rephrase the question: is anyone else a boiled frog like I am? Yes, a frog slowly boiled by the steadily increasing burdens of the “shadow work” required to maintain a life that has become, without us noticing, dependent on constant unpaid effort to keep all the stuff we now depend on functioning.

There are illusions galore in this mimicry of technological “empowerment:” the illusion that we “own” all the stuff that becomes a brick once a digital component fails or we fail to accept the new terms of service. The illusion that all these services and devices “free us” to enjoy more leisure. The illusion that performing all the unpaid shadow work needed to keep all the complicated stuff functioning is “worth it” rather than a form of digital servitude. The illusion that we have a “choice,” an illusion that’s broken once we “choose” to opt out of the shadow work and everything ceases to function.

Parody abounds in the digital realm. Pathetically wretched services and products are touted as “Progress” with a capital P. “Consumer choice” when your smart phone screen dies is reduced to buying a replacement phone from one of the phone quasi-monopolies. Do you really want to endure learning a new system, or would you rather bite the bullet and stick with the same monopoly so you don’t have to spend unpaid hours trying to figure out a new system?

Our dependence on the quasi-monopoly platforms is complete, and so we are wary of violating the infinitely capacious caprices of their terms of service, which mean exactly what we want them to mean, which means you can be sent to the Demonetization Gulag in Digital Siberia without warning or recourse.

Consider a typical experience of the stupidly complicated time-sink unpaid shadow work we endure on a daily basis. A payment platform that we depend on recently informed me mid-day on May 18 that I was required to update “business information” by May 18 or my ability to access my own earnings would be suspended.

Well, thank you very much for the advance notice. So I navigate their wretchedly confusing site to the “business information” page and discover it’s blank: there is literally nothing there. (Metaphorically, how apt.) Okay, so all of us busy digital shadow workers know the drill: reload the page–no dice. Okay, open another browser and try that–nope, the page I need to update to avoid being sent to the Demonetization Gulag is still blank.

It’s obviously hopeless now, but we continue to play along because we’re trapped in Kafka’s Castle, always churning 24/7 with busy-work that is completely unproductive. So we email tech support, knowing it will be useless.

And sure enough, it is utterly useless. The tech rep (or chatbot, who knows) apologizes for the inconvenience, but has no solution. All of us shadow workers know we have to enter the rat-maze again and hope the page loads so we can jump off the train taking us to the Demonetization Gulag. Perhaps our prayers to the Digital Gods and Goddesses are answered, or the Matrix self-corrected, who knows, but the page finally loads hours later and we dutifully enter the same data the platform already had on record. This seems to satisfy the Kafkaesque requirements, and we breathe a sigh of relief.

But wait, there’s more! No sooner do we get that unpaid waste of our lives done than we receive another email from the same platform demanding another update to our “business information.” Gee, is it really asking too much to send a single email with all your required updates instead of torturing us with a string of emails?

So back we go to the same page and re-enter the exact same information and click “update.” Um, is this a parody of technical simplicity and productivity, or is it simply a gigantic waste of time, a form of digital servitude we cannot escape?

Then the final slap of parody: the “how did we do?” email requesting us to waste even more time answering a questionnaire about their wondrous tech support. You mean the tech support I was forced to contact because your site was broken, the tech support which did nothing to address the problem? No thank you, I’m already boiled alive and don’t really feel like wasting more of life rating your “service.”

Want to sign up for a short-term vacation rental platform? Sort through these 4,000 photos and select all those with a frog (live or boiled) and then move to the next excruciating step of our “validation process.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Is Anyone Else’s Life as Stupidly Complicated by Digital ‘Shadow Work’ as Mine Is? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bidenomics Is the Beginning of the End for the U.S. Economy

Ven, 24/05/2024 - 05:01

I have a great idea.  Let’s wildly print money, let’s systematically destroy the reserve currency of the globe, let’s add a trillion dollars to the national debt every 100 days, let’s strangle the economy with all sorts of ridiculous regulations, let’s dramatically hike interest rates, let’s make things exceedingly difficult for our domestic energy industry, and let’s allow theft, violence, homelessness and migration to run wild.  Then we’ll sit back and see what happens.  What I have just described is essentially what we have witnessed over the last three years.  Joe Biden and others in positions of power in Washington are running our economy into the ground.  The system really is coming apart at the seams, and Bidenomics really is the beginning of the end for the U.S. economy.

Former Chrysler and Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli is also sounding the alarm about the severe damage that Bidenomics is doing.

In fact, he just told Maria Bartiromo that the fault lines of our economy are “about ready to crack”

Former Chrysler and Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli warned that the fault lines of the economy are “about ready to crack” on Monday, adding that the Biden administration’s alleged policy missteps could leave a cumbersome mess for the next person who sits in the Oval Office to clean up.

“What I’ve seen over the past three-and-a-half years is that a series of debacles and missteps have created a tremendous pressure on the fault lines of our economy, and they’re about ready to crack,” he told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo.

He is right.

Our economy is steamrolling in the wrong direction, and the short-term outlook is extremely troubling.

One recent survey of small businesses found that nearly half of them believe that they will “definitely” or “probably” not survive another four years under Joe Biden…

In a new report from RedBalloon and PublicSquare, nearly half of the 80,000 small businesses surveyed said they “definitely” or “probably” will not survive another four years with Biden.

“There is nothing I can afford to do in addition to what I’m already doing. If things don’t change, I’ll be finished,” one business owner said in the report.

Already, businesses are making moves to preserve their cash flows. Four in 10 now said they are delaying paying bills while a whopping seven in 10 have put all staffing plans on hold, the survey found.

And a different survey discovered that a whopping 43 percent of all small business renters in the U.S. could not pay their rent in full last month…

A significant number of small businesses across the nation are struggling to pay rent due to skyrocketing costs, a recent study by business networking platform Alignable found.

The company’s latest Small Business Rent report, published on Friday, found that 43 percent of small business renters in the U.S. were unable to pay their rent in full and on time in the month of April. Such a high delinquency rate hasn’t been reported in the U.S. since March 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it reached 49 percent.

More small businesses are going under with each passing day.

We really are in the midst of a “small business apocalypse”, and that is extremely bad news, because small businesses create most of the new jobs in this country.

Rising costs are one of the primary reasons why so many small businesses are now in hot water, and inflation is also crushing ordinary American families that are just trying to make it from month to month.

Earlier today, I was astounded to learn that the price of an order of medium fries at one McDonalds location in Los Angeles was $1.79 at the end of 2019, but now it has risen to $4.19.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post Bidenomics Is the Beginning of the End for the U.S. Economy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Great Books You Need To Read

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01 readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of in 2024, please remember to DONATE TODAY! 

  1. American Memory Hole: How the Court Historians Promote Disinformation 
  2. The JFK Assassination Chokeholds 
  3. It’s Good to Be a Man: A Handbook for Godly Masculinity
  4. 801 Things You Should Know
  5. How to Trade In Stocks 
  6. Living in a Mindful Universe: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Heart of Consciousness
  7. Rich Man Poor Bank: What the banks DON’T want you to know about money
  8. War at the Top of the World
  9. Money: Sound and Unsound
  10. How the Brain Works: The Facts Visually Explained (DK How Stuff Works) 
  11. Pagan America: The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come 
  12. How Your House Works
  13. Stretching to Stay Young
  14. Top Secret America
  15. Two Treatises on Competitive Currency and Banking
  16. I Will Teach You to Be Rich: No Guilt. No Excuses. Just a 6-Week Program That Works
  17. Water: For Health, for Healing, for Life: You’re Not Sick, You’re Thirsty!
  18. Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art 
  19. What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong
  20. Fauci’s First Fraud: The Foundation of Medical Totalitarianism in America (Medical System Corruption)

The post Great Books You Need To Read appeared first on LewRockwell.

Why Washington DC is the War Capital of the World

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

Ultimately, there is no mystery as to why the Forever Wars go on endlessly. Or why at a time when Uncle Sam is hemorrhaging red ink a large bipartisan majority saw fit to authorize $95 billion of foreign aid boondoggles that do absolutely nothing for America’s homeland security.

To wit, Washington has morphed into a freak of world history—a planetary War Capital dominated by a panoptic complex of arms merchants, paladins of foreign intervention and adventure and Warfare State nomenklatura. Never before has there been assembled and concentrated under a single state authority a hegemonic force possessing such unprecedented levels of economic resources, advanced technology and military wherewithal.

Not surprisingly, the world’s War Capital is Orwellian to the core. Its endless pursuit of war is always and everywhere described as the promotion of peace. Its jackboot of global hegemony is gussied-up in the form of alliances and treaties ostensibly designed to promote a “rules-based order” and collective security for the benefit of mankind, not simply the proper goals of peace, liberty, safety and prosperity within America’s homeland.

Unfortunately, the whole intellectual foundation of the enterprise is false. The planet is not crawling with all-powerful would-be aggressors and empire-builders who must be stopped cold at their own borders, lest they devour the freedom of all their neighbors near and far.

Nor is the DNA of nations infected with incipient butchers and tyrants like Hitler and Stalin. They were one-time accidents of history and fully distinguishable from the standard run of everyday tinpots which actually do arise periodically. But the latter mainly disturb the equipoise of their immediate neighborhoods, not the peace of the planet.

So America’s homeland security does not depend upon a far-flung array of alliances, treaties, military bases and foreign influence operations. In today’s world there are no Hitler’s, actual or latent, to stop. The whole framework of Pax Americana and the Washington based promotion and enforcement of a “rules-based” international order is an epochal blunder.

In that regard, the founding fathers got it right more than 200 years ago during the infancy of the Republic. As Brian McGlinchey recently noted,

Let’s review some key excerpts of Washington’s foreign policy guidance, starting with the principle he put above all others:

“Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.”

With this guidance, Washington echoed the wisdom of other American founders. Thomas Jefferson urged “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

John Quincy Adams approvingly said, “[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings…She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Needless to say, peaceful commerce is invariably far more beneficial to nations large and small than meddling, interventionism and military engagement. In today’s world it would be the default state of play on the international chessboard, save for the Great Hegemon on the banks of the Potomac. That is to say, the main disturbance of the peace in today is invariably fostered by the self-appointed peacemaker, who, ironically, is inherently the least threatened large nation on the entire planet.

That is to say, the United States is essentially invulnerable to conventional military invasion and occupation. On the North American continent its $28 trillion GDP towers over the combined $3.8 trillion GDP of its Mexican and Canadian neighbors by more than 7X.

And on either shore arise the vast Atlantic and Pacific moats, which are even greater barriers to foreign military assault in the 21st century than they so successfully proved to be in the 19th century. That’s because today’s advanced surveillance technology and anti-ship missiles would consign an enemy armada to Davy Jones’ Locker nearly as soon as it steamed out of its own territorial waters.

The fact is, in an age when the sky is flush with high tech surveillance assets a massive conventional force armada couldn’t possibly be secretly built, tested and mustered for surprise attack without being noticed in Washington. There can be no repeat of the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku strike force steaming across the Pacific toward Pearl Harbor sight unseen.

As a practical matter, even America’s ostensible “enemies” have no offensive or invasionary capacity at all. Russia has only one aircraft carrier—a 1980s era vessel which has been in dry-dock for repairs since 2017 and is equipped with neither a phalanx of escort ships nor a suite of attack and fighter aircraft—and at the moment not even an active crew.

Likewise, China has just three aircraft carriers—two of which are refurbished rust buckets purchased from the remnants of the old Soviet Union, and which carriers do not even have modern catapults for launching their strike aircraft.

Indeed, invasion of the American homeland would require a massive conventional armada of land, air and sea-based forces many, many times larger than the military behemoth that is now funded by Washington’s $900 billion defense budget. The logistical infrastructure that would be needed to control the vast Atlantic and Pacific Ocean moats surrounding North America and to sustain an invasion and occupation force of the US mainland is so mind-mindbogglingly vast as to be scarcely imaginable.

For want of doubt, the graphic below compares Washington’s 11 carrier battle groups, which cost about $25 billion each including their escort ships, suites of aircraft and electronic and missile capabilities. But self-evidently, none of the non-NATO countries shown in the red area of the graphic—China, India, Russia or Thailand—will be steaming their tiny 3, 2 and 1 carrier battle groups toward the shores of either California or New New Jersey any time soon. An invasionary force that had any chance at all of surviving a US fortress defense of cruise missiles, drones, jet fighters, attack submarines and electronics warfare would need to be 100X larger.

Yet there is no GDP in the world—$2 trillion for Russia, $3.5 trillion for India or $18 trillion for China—that is even remotely close in size to the $50 to $100 trillion GDP that would be needed to support such an invasionary force without capsizing the home economy.

At the same time, the 11 US carrier battle groups, which will cost upwards of $1.2 trillion over the next decade, would have no role in a continental Fortress America defense at all. They would be sitting ducks in the blue waters, and far less effective than aircraft and missile defenses based in the North American interior.

In short, these massively expensive forces have no purpose other than global power projection and the conduct of wars of invasion and occupation abroad. That is, they are military accoutrements of the War Capital, not even remotely relevant to a proper Fortress America defense.

In today’s world the only theoretical military threat to America’s homeland security is the possibility of nuclear blackmail. That is to say, a First Strike capacity so overwhelming, lethal and effective that an enemy could simply call out checkmate and demand Washington’s surrender.

Yet there is no nation on earth that has anything close to the First Strike force that would be needed to totally overwhelm America’s triad nuclear deterrent, and thereby avoid a retaliatory annihilation of its own country and people if it attempted to strike first. After all, the US has 3,700 active nuclear warheads, of which about 1,770 are operational at any point in time. In turn, these are spread under the sea, in hardened silos and among a bomber fleet of 66 B-2 and B-52s—all beyond the detection or reach of any other nuclear power.

For instance, the Ohio class nuclear submarines each have 20 missile tubes, with each missile carrying an average of four-to-five warheads. That’s 90 independently targetable warheads per boat. At any given time 12 of the 14 Ohio class nuclear subs are actively deployed, and spread around the oceans of the planet within a firing range of 4,000 miles.

So at the point of attack that’s 1,080 deep-sea nuclear warheads to identify, locate and neutralize before any would be blackmailer even gets started. Indeed, with respect to the “Where’s Waldo?” aspect of it, the sea-based nuclear force alone is a powerful guarantor of America’s homeland security.

And then there are the roughly 300 nukes aboard the 66 strategic bombers, which also are not sitting on a single airfield Pearl Harbor style waiting to be obliterated, but are constantly rotating in the air and on the move. Likewise, the 400 Minutemen III missiles are spread out in extremely hardened silos deep underground. Each missile currently carries one nuclear warhead in compliance with the Start Treaty, which would also need to be taken out by would be blackmailers.

Needless to say, there is no way, shape or form that America’s nuclear deterrent can be neutralized by a blackmailer. And the best thing is that according to the most recent CBO estimates the nuclear triad will cost only about $75 billion per year to maintain over the next decade, including allowances for periodic weapons upgrades.

As shown below, therefore, the heart of America’s military security requires only 7% of today’s massive military budget. Indeed, the heart of the nuclear deterrent—sea-based ballistic missiles—is estimated to cost just $188 billion over the next decade, or 1.9% of the $10 trillion national defense baseline.

10-Year Cost Of US Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Per CBO Estimates, 2023 to 2032

Here’s the thing. The actual cost of the national security budget is $1.3 trillion per year. Yet if you allow an ample $250 billion per year for a Fortress America continental defense and $75 billion for the triad strategic deterrent, the question recurs. Where does all the rest—$975 billion—go?

As we will amplify in Part 2, it goes to the War Capital’s pursuit of global military and political hegemony and to fund the deferred cost of past overseas policing operations, neither of which were and are necessary for America’s homeland security. And beyond that, tens of billions more slop-over into pure budgetary self-promotion. That is, military contractor lobbying and bribes, think tank studies and advocacy programs and NGO and national security agency propaganda and influence operations all around the planet.

Still, just consider the implications of the chart below. About $346 billion of the $1.3 trillion national security budget is for veterans compensation, medical care and other benefits. These programs serve upwards of 6.2 million disabled veterans and dependents and 9.2 million enrollees in the Veterans health care system.

Yet absent all the unnecessary wars that have occurred since the Cold War attained full force in 1948-1949, the US would have only 60,000 veterans of foreign wars today, of which just 11,448 are currently receiving disability benefits. Even when you add in their dependents, the total of WWII era vets receiving disability compensation is just 34,265 or 0.6% of the total beneficiary roll of 6.159 million.

At average compensation and medical care cost of $35,000 per beneficiary, the total cost would be $1.2 billion currently and barely $10 million per year by 2035 when only 311 WWII vets are projected to remain.

That’s right. The FY 2024 cost of veterans benefits owing to unnecessary wars, such as the 1.385 million Vietnam vets on disability and the 3.37 million Gulf War vets receiving disability payments and VA health care, is $345 billion.

And that deferred cost figure for the Forever Wars amounts to 116% of China’s current $298 billion defense budget, 425% of India’s $81 billion, 480% of Russia’s $72 billion (pre-Ukraine), 595% of Germany’s $58 billion and 690% of South Korea’s $50 billion military budget, notwithstanding the madman who rules across the DMZ.

Yet it only gets worse from there. By the end of the 10-year budget window, the $550 billion baseline cost of veterans benefits will amount to 55,000 times more than what a Fortress America homeland security policy would have generated over the past seven decades.

Needless to say, that begs the question, why in the world has Washington become the War Capital of the World, generating hideously excessive costs that the taxpayers of America neither benefit from nor can remotely afford?

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The post Why Washington DC is the War Capital of the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

How Westward Expansion Strengthened the Federal Government

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

[Dangerous Ground: Squatters, Statesmen, and the Antebellum Rupture of American Democracy by John Suval, Oxford, 2022, 281 pp. ]

Historian Charles Tilly once famously described the origins of the state as this: “war made the state and the state made war.” Tilly also understood, however, that the process of building and consolidating state power involved much more than simply waging wars against competing states. As Tilly notes in his book Coercion, Capital, and European States, states engage in several other activities to consolidate and expand their power. For example, states are greatly concerned with expanding their monopoly on coercion within a territory by “attacking and checking competitors and challengers within the territory claimed by the state.” Tilly further notes that state power is enhanced by “extraction” of resources from populations subject to the state power. Once extraction takes place, the state can proceed further to “distribution” which includes “the allocation of goods among members of the subject population.”

These methods of state building apply to nearly all modern states, and they certainly apply to the United States. Much of this can be seen in how the United States expanded in the nineteenth century. Many Americans, however, remain in the grip of fanciful myths about the growth of the American state. For example, these myths often perpetuate the idea that the federal government’s expansion into new territories west of the Appalachians after the American Revolution was generally non-violent, passive, and laissez-faire.

This naïve view of American frontier expansion generally leaves out most of the details about how the US’s central government—from the early nineteenth century onward—took a very keen interest in how the American frontier was settled, and by whom. Indeed, Congress spent many hours debating and passing legislation designed to ensure that the frontier was settled in a way that served the interests of powerful lobbies and individuals in Washington.

Many of these forgotten details are explored in John Suval’s 2022 book Dangerous Ground: Squatters, Statesmen, and the Antebellum Rupture of American Democracy. Suval’s book is fairly unusual among frontier history books in that it generally does not focus on conflicts between settlers and indigenous tribes, or on the process by which the settlers arrived on the frontier. Rather, Suval focuses on the relationship between settlers and the federal government, and on how federal policymakers in Washington viewed the settlers.

In the process, Suval provides a helpful case study in how the American federal government carried out a campaign of state building in frontier lands. From Washington’s perspective, frontier settlement was about more than mere domestic policy. Settlement was also an important geopolitical tool.

The Geopolitics of Frontier Settlement

As with all states, the American state has sought to expand its own power at the expense of other states. In the nineteenth century, this meant expanding US influence and monopoly power westward across North America. At the time, the largest competitors were foreign states like Britain, Spain, and Mexico. More informal competition came from the quasi-states that were the Indian tribal governments.

After Spain lost most of its American colonies in the secession movements of the 1820s, the most significant foreign competition for the US regime in North America became Britain and Mexico. Subsequently, American settlers often worked in an informal partnership with the US federal government to assist the US regime in annexing Mexican and British lands. Suval illustrates how American settlers in California paved the way for US annexation of California in the Mexican War: American settlers moved into California with the assumption that the American regime would soon follow and absorb these lands into the United States. Indeed, the rhetoric of westward settlement was often militaristic in nature. Suval writes:

The mystical rhetoric about Manifest Destiny had positioned California as the promised land of an “irresistible army” of Anglo-Saxon farmers who, by virtue of being white American cultivators, would naturally come to possess the region and spread enterprise and republican institutions.

In the minds of most settlers, this also meant annexation by the United States. Moreover, the fact that “Anglo” settlers had become so numerous in California by 1848 further motivated the Mexican government to give up its claim to California during negotiations over the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. An ongoing flood of settlers after 1848 would also ensure that there would be no ambiguity about who controlled California. That is, American settlers helped seal the geopolitical fate of California.

Similar methods were employed to “encourage” the British state to give up its claims to much of Oregon Country in the late 1840s. After 1818, the US and Britain shared joint control over Oregon Country which extended hundreds of miles north and south of what is now the US-Canada border. After 1843, however, sizable factions in Congress pushed for new policies designed to make Oregon part of the United States. Democrats pushed for grants of 640 acres to American settlers with the understanding that settlers would be assisted by the US government in resisting any intervention from either British or indigenous residents. It was assumed US military intervention was only a matter of time once the benefits of “US control and protection” were promised to settlers. According to Suval, the scheme’s supporters feared “Nobody would go [to Oregon] without the inducement of land” and that without free land for American settlers, “England would be left to occupy the whole country.”

In the early 1840s, much of this legislation languished in Congress, but the message had been sent to settlers who now believed it was only a matter of time. Promises from leaders in the Democratic party meant many settlers believed they would be—to use a modern policy term—”backstopped” by the US government were they to settle on lands of dubious legal status.

Eventually, this symbiotic political relationship between settlers and the US government worked as planned. Pro-settler factions in Congress assured settlers that the US government would not be far behind them. In turn, settlers poured into new regions which then gave the US government an excuse for expanding its military and diplomatic role in the disputed territories.

Similar methods were employed in assisting settlers with efforts to seize tribal lands from the indigenous population. From the very beginning, tribal governments had presented a threat to the consolidation of the federal government monopoly over frontier lands. Moreover, policymakers in Washington could not decide if tribal governments were truly sovereign entities whose relationship with the United States was governed by bilateral treaties. By the time of Andrew Jackson, however, most national policymakers had come around to the idea that Indian groups were fully subject to the whims of the US Congress and ought to be treated accordingly. By the early 1830s, the US had already created a system of Indian “reserves” set aside or tribal groups where they would be insulated from white settlement.

These “reserves,” however were soon targeted by Jacksonians. Suval illustrates the methods by which the American state systematically employed tactics of sticks and carrots to “convince” tribal groups to move West of the Mississippi. This began with promises of free land further west in exchange for abandoning the tribes’ current homelands. If that did not work, US representatives then explained to tribal representatives that a rising ride of whites would soon overwhelm them. These warnings then turned to threats. Tribes that persisted in staying put were then threatened with military action as a last resort. Needless to say, the treaties that came after this array of threats were effectively signed under duress.

The subsequent “removal” of many tribes soon followed, including those tribes that had adopted written languages and constitutions, such as the Cherokee. The fact that many of these tribes lived in permanent agricultural settlements was not enough to save them from settler claims that all Indians were nomads with no understanding of property or land.

Land Redistribution as Public Welfare

Forcing tribes to abandon their lands for smaller and more remote “reserves” served an important geopolitical function by removing challengers to federal supremacy within the American territorial heartland.

Indian removal served an important domestic function, as well. Pushing Indians westward opened up new lands that were then handed over to white voters. This served to buy votes from poor white voters looking for cheap land. Then as now, members of Congress knew the political value of free handouts to voters. As Suval notes, “The journals of the House and Senate from the 1830s abound with bills providing for the relief of destitute white settlers and for the extension of preemption laws [i.e., legally recognizing illegal settlement] even to those claiming Indian reserves.”

In the 1830s a model was thus created that would be used for decades. Foreign claims on various lands—whether British, Mexican, or tribal—would be ignored or abolished by the US government with the purpose of making those lands available to white American settlers. The political party that could present itself as the greatest supporter of “free” land for settlers—usually the Democratic party—would then be rewarded with new loyal voters. This political mechanism was captured in a new catchphrase that appeared in 1845: “Vote Yourself a Farm.” Voters understood that with the right pressure tactics, settlers could obtain “free” land complete with federal assurances of legal and military support against any other claims to those lands from non-Anglo American settlers. Politicians in Congress were happy to play along.

Using Frontier Settlement to Carry out National Policy

The myth of a laissez-faire federal government in frontier policy is also contradicted in the ways frontier settlement was managed to serve national domestic concerns. Chief among these was slavery. Those familiar with US debates over slavery between 1820 and 1860 know that settlement of the frontier was at the center of the fight between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. Not surprisingly, then, the federal government frequently intervened to decide if newly settled territories would allow slavery or not. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, of course, required federal intervention to ensure that slavery policies in new states and territories reflected deals struck by federal policymakers in Congress.

Moreover, federal positions on new territorial acquisition in the west often reflected debates in Washington over maintaining a balance between slave and free states. For example, Suval shows how after the US annexed Texas in 1845, the annexation of Oregon as a free territory became a priority for anti-slavery forces. Thus, land giveaways in Oregon functioned as both public welfare and as a tool against the Slave Power. The idea that local residents could simply create their own institutions and decide for themselves on slavery matters was largely dismissed in Washington. It was only with the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 that Congress experimented with the idea of true local sovereignty. Suval provides an extensive discussion of how Kansas essentially served as a national referendum on whether or not so-called “popular sovereignty” would be allowed to frontier settlers. Even on the distant plains of Kansas in the 1850s, there was no escape from national politics.

Federal State Building on the Frontier 

Although Suval does not address or employ the theoretical framework of state building as imagined by Tilly, Suval nonetheless shows how the US in the nineteenth century was engaged in typical state-building activities. The federal government in this period was immensely successful at excluding potential rivals from the desired territories. Concomitantly, the federal government employed these powers to seize and redistribute resources to favored populations that could, in turn, help in consolidating federal power. Far from ignoring frontier settlement or allowing the frontier to “organically” develop, the US government was careful to manage frontier lands in ways that enhanced federal power and helped federal politicians address national political goals.  Dangerous Ground should be required reading for students of American political history looking for a more complete picture of frontier politics in the nineteenth century.

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

The post How Westward Expansion Strengthened the Federal Government appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Pathetic Want of Rule, Authority, and Collectivism, Has Led to the Tortured Enslavement of Man

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

“Authority allows two roles: the torturer and the tortured. Twists people into joyless mannequins that fear and hate, while culture plunges into the abyss.”

Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

Every aspect of government, every moronic vote for any master, every atrocity, every war, every form of censorship, every genocide, every economic disaster, and every form of totalitarianism, is fully dependent on the lack of self-ownership by any and all in the collective herd of those who voluntarily allow themselves to be enslaved by any ruling State. Any acceptance of rule, any rule, is the antithesis of freedom. The very idea of rule runs counter to any sanity, and no one who accepts rule without active and forceful dissent, deserves his lot in life as a slave.

This is the actual problem, this is the bottom line, this is the big picture. All else is but a consequence of the allowance of rule. Concentrating on hate, every singular event, every form of tyranny, every isolated evil perpetrated or allowed by the State, every psychotic ‘election,’ and every pitiful falsely-claimed victim; all while ignoring, chastising, negating, and abandoning the individual and independent self-rule, is cause for great alarm. When this attitude is broad-based and taken up by the masses, which happened a long time ago, collective ignorance and universal stupidity becomes the norm. This causes division and constant blame where it should not exist, for the real problem lies with the fact that the people individually and collectively have accepted authoritative governance as their god.

This of course seems to this doltish society of fools, as the easy way out; so as not to have to be responsible for themselves or their own subsistence. What a society like this breeds is exactly what we have today in this country, and most of the rest of the world, especially in the West; a pathetic, weak, and controlled proletariat class, dependent on their chosen master’s whims, restrictions, and regulations. They wallow in complacency, while choosing to exist as submissive addicts of rule. The incessant nature of this total societal  laziness, irresponsibility, and cowardice, is cloaked in ignorance, fear, and hate for one another; all solicited by the governing slime, and all unwarranted.

The end product that arises from this societal mindset, especially in the U.S., is eye-opening to say the least. Most of the people here actually believe they are free and live in a free country. They are fat and happy, regardless of the tyranny they face, and able to eat all the poison that fast food chains and processed manufacturing can dish out; soon (already are)  to be in the form of genetically-modified organisms, fake meat, worms and bugs, chemicals, metals, and unknown biological and technological nano-particulate matter. This is happening while the vast majority have no concept of their fate due to their blind obedience to the State, and its agendas.

Hypocrisy and contradiction are rampant among this complicit population, and it is seemingly never-ending. Much of this behavior is based on the concept of duality of standards, this a common theme, especially concerning Americans. They tend to take on an air of sympathy, mostly false I might add, for the plight of others around them, whether locally, nationally, or internationally; not because it is legitimate, but because of arrogance, superiority complex, or the need to pretend to care so as to please their particular group-think role. This conjures up images of race-baiting, red against blue, right against left, forced inclusion, diversity nonsense, the idiocy of transgender policies, so-called anti-war attitudes, which rarely actually exist from either ‘side,’ and the incredibly ludicrous notion of “spreading democracy,” as if that is not pure aggression in any form.

Most Americans support war, regardless of the level of slaughter and death, so long as it is pretended to be for the ‘right reasons,’ and is being waged to suit deceitful manufactured State narratives, usually based on illegitimate fear, and promoted by the scum in government, military, and media. Since spoiled Americans do not have brutal war in country, it is easy to feign false empathy and fake concern for others, while getting fat watching fake television news, and supporting this country’s foreign policies, which are the most brutal in the history of man. Currently, approximately half the country are pretending to support the evil Zionists in Israel, and about half are pretending to support Palestine. The U.S. government is claiming both sides at once, and the lowly masses are falling right in line. The U.S. is up to its neck using the tax revenue and all the fake money it can create to fund every war, whether in Israel, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, or elsewhere, and the population here has only to decide which party ‘supports’ which side in order to choose their team. It is not war they are upset with, but which party benefits from which particular war.

If they actually wanted to stop war, they would eliminate the single cause of war, which is the State and its governing monsters, instead of taking sides akin to a sporting event. When the U.S. attacked Vietnam, killing millions of innocent civilians, there were again two sides of the same coin, and both at the time also supported the government who aggressively prosecuted that heinous war. When the U.S. aggressively attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, again killing millions, including 500,000 children under the age of 5, most in this country were watching this evil on television, and applauding the bombings, sanctions, and total destruction of countries and people. It has been the same from both sides for every conflict, every war of aggression; for the entirety of history. This is hypocrisy at its highest level, but then, contradiction lives and breathes in the ‘good ole USSA.’

The actual murderers who are the assassins for the State are the military, but most all in this country still cheer them on in their slaughter of innocents. They act on orders alone, and not moral behavior, killing without conscience.  The military industrial complex is the fascist partner of government, and only acts in the interest of the State, never the people. Throw away the flag of death, refuse to utter any allegiance to the bloodied flag, and withhold any support for the anthem of war.

It seems, no, it is almost certain, that people everywhere support the very evil they claim to abhor. Every country on earth has a government, and every government is pure evil; only seeking money, power, and control over their subjects. In WWII, the German people supported German government, the Americans supported the U.S. government, the British supported the government in England, and on and on, and all supported war. Any who shun rule, any who loathe war, any who want to be free, have to stop all State authority; they have to abolish the perpetrator of war, which is the State. This has never happened, so why do so many think things will improve by their continued support for any State or Nation? Why do any believe that authority of any kind is the answer, when in fact. that authority is the entire problem?

In order to be truly free, all rule must be abandoned in favor of natural law and self-rule. So long as government and authority are present, slavery will remain universal, and mass obedience to that authority will be the way of life. Instead of concentrating on each and every incident of economic destruction, carnage, rape, theft, torture, murder, killing and perversion of children, and war, forcefully challenge the cause of all this horror, which is the government you alone allow to exist. The big picture will not ever change so long as the masses concentrate on the results of rule, as opposed to the fact that rule itself is the problem, and cause of all the terror inflicted on the bulk of humanity.

You are a huge part of the problem. All those who seek or allow rule, allow government, and willingly obey a master are the problem. All those who voluntarily choose (vote) to select a new master with expectations of ending tyranny, are the problem. All those who cower and hide from responsibility in the face of totalitarian rule, are the problem. All those who ‘respect’ authority are the problem.

The only way any government or State can rule, the only way it can demand compliance of its criminal arbitrary ‘laws,’ the only way it can advance any war, is with the voluntary consent of the people. Withhold that consent, negate all authority, and defend at all costs your own liberty.  It is time to eliminate the State, once and forever, and sent it to the depths of hell where it belongs.

“You might think that there’s some authority you could look to for answers, but all of the authorities you can think of are fake.”

Jean-Paul Sartre

The post The Pathetic Want of Rule, Authority, and Collectivism, Has Led to the Tortured Enslavement of Man appeared first on LewRockwell.

An Urgent Matter

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

“If the government can suspend your rights anytime it deems something is a crisis, you don’t have rights. You have permissions.” — “Pismo” on “X”

While our country sleepwalks through the deadly aftermath of the evil Covid-19 operation, the World Health Organization (WHO) puts the final touches on a nice bit of fuckery called its Pandemic Treaty on International Health Regulations (IHR) or “One Health” initiative, a Globalist power grab disguised in the saintly white robes of public health medicine. The agreement, to be finalized at the end of this month, will cede what’s left of your liberty to this unelected bureaucracy for the sake of global “equity and inclusivity,” meaning more lockdowns, constant surveillance, forced “vaccinations,” restrictions on medications, and censorship of anyone who voices a contrary opinion of these actions.

Sound familiar? Yeah, it’s Covid-19 all over again, a second crack at controlling everything you do and every choice you might make by a cabal of governments and corporations, in other words, an international gang of fascists. The WHO is an agency of the United Nations, run out of Switzerland. You might recall this is the same place where the World Economic Forum (the WEF, a.k.a. “Davos”) has its headquarters. For years, the WEF has been issuing blueprints for a techno-fascist global regime under which, they state baldly, “you will own nothing and be happy.” (And eat bugs.)

These birds are not kidding around, though anyone can see the megalomania on display, the grandiose will-to-power that seeks to subjugate the plebes of the world — and radically decrease our numbers — so that a remaining tiny elite can enter into a post-modern, techno-transhuman utopia uncluttered with us “useless eaters.” The corporate money and organizational mojo out of Davos is behind what amounts to a homicidal racketeering scheme masquerading as disease prevention.

Of course, the pharmaceutical companies are front-and-center in the mix. They stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars distributing their mandated “vaccines” — which, you know by now, will not be properly tested, and, as currently being demonstrated by the Covid shots, are covertly designed to kill as many people as possible over a long period of time by switching off the natural defenses of your immune system, guaranteeing bewilderment and compliance by the hoodwinked masses. This might sound like a paranoid sci-fi movie, but, alas, the first phase has already happened starting in 2020. And since the pharma companies provide most of the advertising revenue for cable news media, you have been successfully mind-fucked into not seeing what is going on all around you: a whole lot of sickness and death.

Fortunately, it is the nature of megalomania that it always thinks too highly of its power and reaches too far. For one thing, this WHO “treaty” has to be signed by its member nations. Not all of them are eager to do that. One was Slovakia, whose prime minister, Robert Fico, was gunned down a few days after he announced his country would opt out. The coterie of the USA behind the senile and incompetent “Joe Biden,” is avid to sign us onto the treaty, largely because much of global Big Pharma operates out of our country, and rents so many members of Congress, especially most of the Democratic Party.

Under the US Constitution, the president can’t follow through on an international treaty without the Senate’s approval by two-thirds of its members. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has been the most active figure in that body investigating the crimes of the Covid-19 op and organizing votes against the treaty, which he declares to be all 49 Republican senators. Thus, there can be no two-thirds majority ratification of the WHO treaty.

But note that the shadow government running “Joe Biden” has been doing all kinds of things in overt defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the US Supreme Court on what is permissible under the Constitution, for instance, cancelling colossal sums of college loan debt. The “Joe Biden” regime is lawless. Anyone following the malicious prosecutions of candidate Donald Trump and the mass round-up of J-6 protestors can see how that works. So, you are advised to call and write your elected representatives in Congress to make sure that the executive branch (the White House and its agencies) gets the message: no deal on the WHO treaty.

There are other trends underway at this time that may assist us in escaping what amounts to a globalist coup d’état. One is that the economic and political crack-up of Western Civ is tending in the opposite direction of the extreme centralization of power that the WHO represents. Things are breaking down, especially things organized at the gigantic scale. Just look at the chaos overtaking corporatized doctor practices and conglomeratized hospitals in America. The corruption and degeneracy of national governments, with their colossal bureaucracies, has reached the stage that few among the people subject to them can fail to notice. That has sapped their legitimacy and prompted citizens to non-compliance with their increasingly insane diktats.

Under the Constitution, the duties not spelled out under federal authority are left to the states. Public health is one of these. Accordingly, the attorney-generals of twenty-two US states have declared their objection to the WHO treaty in a letter to “Joe Biden” and their intent to ignore its commands. What remains to be seen is whether the Globalists can use a new engineered pathogen out of their many bioweapons labs to stir up another pandemic scare to terrorize the world population into being pushed around. Don’t doubt that they will try it, especially in a year when many nations will be holding elections. And don’t get fooled again when they do.

Reprinted with permission from

The post An Urgent Matter appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Decay of Everyday Life

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

So where does this leave us? We’re on our own.

This month I’ve described what can be summarized as The Decay of Everyday Life: the erosion of the fundamental elements of everyday life: work, opportunity, social mobility, security and well-being, which includes civility, conviviality and a functional, competent social-political order.

In other words, Everyday Life includes far more than the financial statistics of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the stock market, wealth and income. Everyday Life is fundamentally about relationships, agency (i.e. control of one’s life and ownership of one’s work), the fulfillment of life’s purposes (livelihood, family, friends, community and self-growth), leisure time and the experiences of everyday living, both the stressors and the joys.

As I’ve explored in recent posts, the experiential elements of Everyday Life have decayed over the past 40 years: life is more difficult and less secure in ways that are not offset by technological advances. Indeed, the most highly touted technological advances (Internet and mobile phones) have increased the burdens of shadow work and introduced new pathways of addiction and stress that have reduced well-being. Rather than being free, they include structures of control that we have yet to grasp, much less limit.

Here are my recent posts:

Precarious: One Misfortune Away from Insolvency
Squeezed for Decades, America’s Working Class Is Finally Up Against the Wall
Lost in the Vast Wasteland of Social Media
Hikikomori and Lying Flat: When “Making It” Becomes Hopeless
Withdrawing from the Rat Race Is Going Global

The Decay of Everyday Life echoes the title of one of the more important books I’ve long recommendedThe Structures of Everyday Life Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century Volume 1 by Fernand Braudel. The book outlines how changes in the economic structure led to changes in everyday life.

The structures I outline in the five posts describe the economic structures that shape our daily lives and the political and social structures we inhabit. While I focus attention on the way globalization and financialization have hollowed out our economy and increased the precarity of labor, in the larger context we can identify these structural drivers of decay:

1. The balance between labor and capital has been skewed to capital for 50 years. Labor’s political power and share of the economy has declined, while capital’s political and economic power has become dominant. This has driven income-wealth inequality to extremes that are destabilizing the economy and the political-social orders.

Increasing the sums labor can borrow to keep afloat only works until debt service consumes all disposable income, crushing consumption. The end result is mass default of debt and the erasure of debt-based “assets” held by the financial elites (top 10%).

Labor will have to restore the balance with capital or the system will collapse in disorder. History is rather definitive about this causal chain.

2. Process and narrative control have replaced outcomes as the operative mechanisms and goals of the status quo. The illusions of limitless “progress” and “prosperity” have generated a mindset in which outcomes no longer matter, as “progress” and “prosperity” are forces of Nature that can’t be stopped, so we can luxuriate in Process–completing forms and compliance documents, submitting reports to other offices, holding endless meetings to discuss our glacial “progress”, mandating more Process, elevating managers who excel at Process–with the net result that building permits that were once issued in a few days now take months, bridges take decades to build, and incompetence reigns supreme.

To obscure the dismal outcomes–failure, delays, poor quality, errors–narrative control is deployed, expanded and rewarded. The managerial class has been rewarded and advanced not for generating timely, on-budget, high-quality outcomes, but for managing Process and Narrative Control: everything’s going great, and if it isn’t, the fault lies elsewhere.

The net result of this structure is that the competent either quit in disgust or assigned to Siberia, while the incompetent are elevated to the highest levels of corporate and public-sector management.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Decay of Everyday Life appeared first on LewRockwell.

Closer to Nuclear War

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

I can’t help but wonder what proponents of America’s participation in the old Cold War dinosaur known as NATO are thinking about NATO officials who are contemplating sending NATO military personnel into Ukraine to train Ukrainian troops in their war against Russia. Those who relish the idea of nuclear war between the United States and Russia undoubtedly must be ecstatic over the possibility of such a move.

It has been clear for some time that Ukraine is losing its war with Russia. Ukraine has lost countless young soldiers and their front-line troops are now largely composed of middle-aged men. Its production has plummeted. Its supply of weapons is low, which is why it continues to desperately seek replacement weapons from the United States. Ukrainian forces continue to retreat. And there is the increasing possibility that Russian forces will achieve a breakthrough in Ukrainian defense lines.

Obviously feeling desperate over the battlefield situation, European officials within NATO are contemplating sending military personnel into Ukraine to help train Ukrainian soldiers.

But wouldn’t that put NATO and Russia into direct military conflict? After all, what happens if a Russian missile kills a bunch of NATO soldiers inside Ukraine?

According to the New York Times, “So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. ‘We’ll get there eventually, over time,’ he said.”

Brown’s objection, for now, seems to be based more on military practicality rather than the possibility than the increased likelihood of nuclear war. He stated, “For now, he said, an effort inside Ukraine would put ‘a bunch of NATO trainers at risk’ and would most likely mean deciding whether to use precious air defenses to protect the trainers instead of critical Ukrainian infrastructure near the battlefield.”

The Times adds the important kicker in all this: “As a part of NATO, the United States would be obligated under the alliance’s treaty to aid in the defense of any attack on the trainers, potentially dragging America into the war.”

It’s important that we keep in mind why the United States continues to move ever closer to the possibility of all-out nuclear war with Russia. The reason is so that Ukraine can be a member of NATO, something that Russia has long opposed. If the day ever comes when mushroom clouds are suddenly and unexpectedly enveloping cities in Russia and the United States, those who are still alive can mull over whether Ukraine’s membership in NATO was worth it. Indeed, they can also contemplate whether U.S. membership in that old Cold War dinosaur was worth it too.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Closer to Nuclear War appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Biography of Human Thought

Sab, 18/05/2024 - 05:01

I don’t know who actually compiles this information, but typically you see states ranked in various magazines and advertisements.  They use criteria like best schools, lowest crime, happiness score, income level, etc…, so what if we jammed that up a might bit!   Given the acrimony I think we should divvy up states based on another set of criteria:  1.  all black, or all white, or all Asian.   2.  Only libertarians allowed.   3.   Higher knowledge required.   4.   We don’t give a fark everyone is welcome!   5.   Must enjoy working.   6.   Likes to do nothing.   Within this frame of criteria, each state would be ranked.  They could never deviate from this set of rituals.   Because this criteria reflects who you are and will become – based on your own choices.

There was a Star Trek episode wherein Captain Kirk was with his soldier guys on planet Q where warring was going on and The Capt in all his wisdom wanted to join the war.   Then these wisemen appeared, wearing cloaks, floating somewhat, immune from assault of any kind – they were all elderly men with white beards.  They couldn’t believe how barbaric humans were despite millennials of training.

You see, humans are barbaric.  Life became via barbarism and has remained so without evolution.  It never evolved out of our psyche.  Man is stagnant – and something else is propelling us.   We are the exact same creatures that existed 10,000 years ago.  History is about WAR.  That’s how it is defined; schoolbooks, literary books, nonfiction etc..  history is war.   That’s what splashes the news headlines daily – everything is a WAR.   And those guys in the robes have left us to our demise.  Likely quite disgusted.

The amount of jeers from the grandstands for ‘Death’ is like a cartoon.  They can’t really demand children and women be pummeled and squashed.   Yet they do!  Eyes wide in anticipation of the Blood…   That would be another Star Trek episode wherein society was obedient until the clock struck midnight and all chaos let loose.  Landrau struck the clock again at 6am and everyone became obedient slaves.  Barbarism – inherent in the psyche.  But.. not everyone’s psyche.

It seems to me that calling for bad wishes on another person or persons is not too far up on the evolutionary scale.   Death threats are now a yawn.  If we were to accept the muddle of history/0mythology, the civilizations of 3000 BC were a more cohesive family – not by training – but by inherent wisdom.  The Biden administration wanting to return Americans to the life in 1800 is an interesting – reverse evolution.

I imagine reverse evolutions are quite common in history – wherein entire cultures or societies lose their knowledge and must start over in building back to what they used to know.  A circular.   And then a select few so very much – Tesla and Da Vinci come to mind – bring society back from the darkness.  Incredibly ingenious men persons appear in the midst of a dark tie and everything changes.   And BOOM – we are back baby!

And then the FBI and CIA just had to ruin the party.  Stealing every written patent and using the military to match Tesla’s brain.   They couldn’t do it!  Any more than the Pharma industry could match Dr. Bradstreet’s brain – he cured cancer – using natural human proteins.  “OFF YOU GO!”  It seems like such a waste of life.   Smell the roses – that sort of thing.

SO – this is my brain – it doesn’t get a lot of sleep and has a tendency to go to the far far lands where man has never been…

Reprinted with permission from Helena-The Nationalist Voice.

The post A Biography of Human Thought appeared first on LewRockwell.