Lew Rockwell Institute

I have four children, so I think often about what I ought to be doing to make a world a better place before I shuffle off this mortal coil. When engaging in these sorts of speculations it quickly becomes clear that we are only fundamentally in control of ourselves, and ourselves alone. We cannot force other people to do what we want them to do. As the ancient Christian martyrs showed, not even the threat of death can force others to believe or do that which they do not wish to do. So, on our own, we can do little other than simply that which is right, regardless of whether or not other people are likely to follow our lead.

We can certainly try to convince others of what is right and what is good. This is true of the what the saints did, and it is true in parenting and leadership in general. This is true of many facets of life such as family, Church, and community.

It is also true within our own intellectual movement that seeks to preserve human freedom—and to preserve the blessings of that freedom. We seek to show others the value of our cause.

This, of course, is exactly what the great minds of our movement have done. Great scholars and spokesmen like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and others, have spent their lives trying to convince others of what is right and good.

In many ways, they have succeeded.

It is true that many Americans—one survey says one-third of them—have a positive view of socialism. But, that same survey says that more than a half of Americans have a negative view of socialism, while more than half say they have a positive view of capitalism.

Considering the relentless anti-capitalist and anti-freedom propaganda one receives through more than a dozen years of formal schooling, followed by years of exposure to anti-capitalist media and art, it’s truly remarkable that anyone continues to think true freedom is something of value.

Yes, even many of these Americans who claim to like free markets also support—or at least tolerate—countless ways that the state inflicts its despotism upon us. But, we should consider how much worse this situation would be were it not for the relentless work of men like Mises and Rockwell.

Whether they know it or not, the beliefs people hold about the state, about taxes, about freedom, and about socialism and capitalism come from ideological battles that have been waged for centuries. If some people believe that freedom and capitalism are still of value, its because some intellectuals fought to preserve those ideas and make them available and attractive to others. Without the preservation of these ideas, the West would have slipped back into a despotism reminiscent of the ancient world long ago.

So what can we do ourselves to keep these ideas alive? The truth is we can each only do a small part. After all, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard did not personally engage each and every person influenced by their ideas. Mises and Rothbard did not have the opportunity to broadcast their ideas straight into the minds of millions of other human beings. No, the works of the great scholars of freedom spread through the work of others. These ideas spread through publishers and editors and through every person who showed a book to a friend or shared a video with a family member. We do what we can, but we still always ultimately rely on others to play their own part as well.

Indeed, this process is the same as the process of perpetuating civilization itself. The ideas of great cultural projects like Christendom must be tended and cared for. In this, the ideas are like a campfire to which fuel must be added and which must be watched over. Or else the flame fails and much is lost.

I often return to this analogy because it applies so well to our own efforts, and because it was so well dramatized in a popular film—based on the Cormac McCarthy book of the same name—called No Country for Old Men. If you have not seen this film, I highly recommend it, not just for its craftsmanship, but for its themes of doing the right thing, even if it seems the battle is lost.

At the very end of the film, the themes of the film are recapitulated in a monologue delivered by the film’s narrator, Sheriff Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones. The words of the monologue are very similar to the words found in the book, and are essentially McCarthy’s words. In the scene, Bell, who is plagued by feelings of being “outmatched” recounts a dream he had about his father:

it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin’ through the mountains of a night, goin’ through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and and there was snow on the ground. He rode past me and kept on goin’. Never said nothin’ goin’ by. He just rode on past and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down, and when he rode past I seen he was carryin’ fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin’ on ahead and that he was fixin’ to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there.

We the viewers know that Bell regarded his father—also a sheriff—as one who himself preserved civilization and order. So, we see through this story how the author suggests we might look at the problem of preserving that which is good and which is worth saving: we build fires “out there in all that dark and all that cold.” To participate in the good work, we must follow those who came before us out into the dark and build our own fires. At the same time, though, we can also only hope that others follow us into the cold and do likewise. We cannot force them.

The analogy presents a solution: as more people build fires in the dark and the cold, the less dark and cold it will be. But even a single fire will always be better than no fire at all. With no fire at all, how will the other fires be kindled?

We have all known people like the father in the dream. For me, it has long been Lew Rockwell, who has long carried “fire in a horn” and taken it out into the cold to build a larger fire. Lew himself, of course, witnessed Murray Rothbard doing the same.

The rest of us can hope to imitate them, and often, that is enough. Our job is to keep building and tending those fires, lest they be extinguished forever.

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

The post Our Job Is to Build Fires in the Darkness appeared first on LewRockwell.

America’s Untold Stories – Free-form Friday brings Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley back with special guest Garrett Ziegler of Marco Polo, who exposes new bombshells from the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and lawsuit. As Hunter claims he’s flat broke and blames LA wildfires, Trump delivers a stark warning to Russia and Ukraine: “Get to the table right now — or face massive sanctions.”

Also in this episode: Trump pushes for a new nuclear deal with Iran, cancels $400M in Columbia University grants over antisemitism, and makes 13-year-old DJ Daniel’s dream come true at his address to Congress. Plus, Gavin Newsom splits from California liberals by condemning transgender athletes in women’s sports, and CNN hands pro-Trump pundit Scott Jennings a big raise.

Catch every twist, every clash, and every insider scoop only on America’s Untold Stories with Mark & Eric. Buckle up — Free-form Friday never disappoints!

The post America’s Untold Stories: Trump Threatens Russia & Ukraine, Hunter’s Broke & Garrett Ziegler Joins appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The National Pulse

The post NeoCon Douglas Murray Attacks ‘Trumpian Right’ Because We Don’t Want to Fund Zelensky’s Forever War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  Ginny Garner.

Catholic Vote

The post SCOTUS Rejects Trump’s Attempt to Freeze Foreign Aid appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner

Lew,

If Kamala had won no way would this happen. Remember when she told an audience member who shouted “Jesus is Lord!” to leave and go to a Trump rally? 

See here.

The post Trump and Melania Join Catholics in Prayer on Ash Wednesday appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner writes:

Lew,

Comedian podcaster Theo Von, whom I had never heard of until today, does an interesting interview with Candace Owens. He’s kind of funny and does a good job with the questioning. The best part was the discussion from 38:40-59:30 that covers Trump’s hypocrisy on Gaza, the Israeli lobby, US Middle East foreign policy, the Holocaust and Ukraine. 

The post Candace Owens on Theo Von’s Podcast appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Daily Caller

The post Tulsi Gabbard Reveals CIA’s Swamp ‘Worse’ Than She Thought appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Vasko Kohlmayer.

Screenshot

The post In the Den of Thieves appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post The Fed in one lesson appeared first on LewRockwell.

In today’s Liberty Report, Chris Rossini and Daniel McAdams chew on the latest news that you may have missed. Russia, tariffs, Panama Canal, Syria revolt. Tune in!

The post Who Is ‘Taking’ The Panama Canal? Trump Flip-Flops (Again) On Russia…and More! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Who Is ‘Taking’ The Panama Canal? Trump Flip-Flops (Again) On Russia…and More! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Former Congressman Curt Weldon is leading an initiative to call for a new independent presidential commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks that would focus on the suspicious destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11.   In Congress, Weldon revealed that prior to 9/11, Operation Able Danger identified alleged lead hijacker Mohamed Atta 13 different times.   Able Danger also identified “a problem” in Yemen two weeks before the USS Cole attack in 2000.  The operation also identified two al-Qaeda cells involved in 9/11 and a Brooklyn cell linked to the Blind Sheikh.  Conveniently for the United States government, 2.5 terabytes of information on Able Danger were destroyed in 2000.

Weldon’s current initiative includes architects, engineers, firefighters, lawyers, and activists who have compiled compelling evidence that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.  For example, seismic activity was recorded at World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 just before the impact of the planes.  Also, NASA thermal images confirmed long-lasting extreme temperatures of above 1400° Fahrenheit at Ground Zero months after the attacks.

There are more anomalies about 9/11 that go beyond the destruction of the World Trade Center.  For example, the United States government refused for years to launch an independent investigation into 9/11 and finally agreed to the formation of the 9/11 Commission after the relentless advocacy of the victims’ families.  Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail” and refused to objectively investigate 9/11 to protect the United States government and its allies such as Saudi Arabia.  Furthermore, the intelligence community and the Bush administration deliberately obstructed the 9/11 Commission to conceal the truth about 9/11 from the public.

It is well-past time to acknowledge that we were lied to about 9/11 and to demand the truth.  I hope that Weldon’s initiative to investigate the destruction of the World Trade Center will lead to a comprehensive examination of all aspects of 9/11.

The post Curt Weldon’s Initiative to Investigate 9/11 appeared first on LewRockwell.

I just read that Whoopi Goldberg is boycotting performing at the Kennedy Center in protest of Trump winning the presidential election.  Another win for genuine entertainment and another DEI loser slowly disappears from our sight.

It gets better.  That stupid Broadway play “Hamilton” has also canceled its Kennedy Center performance in a hissy fit over Americans not having elected a brain dead California communist as their president.

The post Good News for the Kennedy Center appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, W. T. White.

The post DOGE appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

The post Air Traffic Control Replaced With AI appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many of us have seen videos of the Press Conference in the Oval Office, the spectacle Trump-Vance-Zelensky last Friday, 28 February 2025. Essentially, it appeared that President Trump was ready to make a deal with Zelensky, unelected President of Ukraine, for peace in the Ukraine-Russia war.

The deal consisted of Zelensky granting a concession to the US to mine rare earths (REEs) from Ukraine in part to pay back some of the US$ 350 billion which, according to President Trump, the US has given Ukraine in money and weapons to fight Russia, and in part for Donald Trump, i.e. the US, to negotiate with Vladimir Putin a lasting Peace for the two countries.

The figure of US$ 350 billion, according to more accurate accounting, is vastly exaggerated, the real figure is more likely around US$200 billion. Notwithstanding that about two-thirds of the military equipment never made it to the front, but was “lost” to the black market. In the current situation, this is rather immaterial. This was already reported a year ago by BBC and CNN.

Mr. Zelensky, before signing a concession agreement, wanted “securities”, whatever that means, from Mr. Trump because he doesn’t trust President Putin to stick to a peace agreement. With “security”, the Ukrainian dictator probably meant US troops along with EU troops in Ukraine to guarantee that President Putin does not break the ceasefire and/or Peace Agreement.

During the White House Oval Office Press Conference, hosted by President Trump with the attendance of JD Vance, Vice President; Marco Rubio, Secretary of State; and other US government officials, Zelensky was parading one lie after another about Mr. Putin and Russia. He pretended Putin had broken 25 ceasefire agreements since February 2014, though never was specific. Zelensky is either extremely stupid or he believes that Donald Trump and JD Vance do not know the history, how it got to the war, which would also be extremely stupid.

As Jens Stoltenberg, former Secretary-General of NATO, repeatedly said in the times before passing on the scepter to Mark Rutte, new NATO boss,

“This war started already in February 2014 with the Maidan Coup.”

Stoltenberg did not elaborate who instigated the Coup. It does not matter because it is well known that it was the West, the US with the assistance of Europe. Both Stoltenberg and Rutte are ‘graduates’ of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL).

Let us not forget, the two German-French-sponsored Minsk Agreements [September 2014 and February 2015] were never meant to be implemented, as Madame Merkel, former German Chancellor, shockingly admitted in December 2022 (see this).

After Zelensky’s insistence on ”security” before signing any agreement, Mr. Vance berated Zelensky for being ungrateful, never having said “thank you” for all the moral and material support he has received from the US in the last three years; and Trump doubled-up, accusing Zelensky to be unwilling to make Peace, potentially provoking WWIII.

During the argument, President Trump added something to the extent,

“this is the best deal you could ever get. Normally, a mining company takes 90% and leaves you with 10%, or less. With me you get 50% and we, the United States, get 50%. That’s a fair deal.”

The spat ended up in an unfriendly shouting match which terminated the Press Conference and Zelensky’s stay at the White House rater abruptly, as he was asked to immediately leave the White House, and come back only once he was willing to make Peace. Trump’s final words with a smile were,

“This makes for great television.”

The rare earths deal was not signed. The truth is, a mining deal for Peace would not be ethical. President Trump knows that and would unlikely go down that rabbit hole. But Zelensky fell for the deal, hoping he could incite President Trump to defend his, Zelensky’s, side against President Putin.  How wrong he was!

President Trump said in no uncertain words,

“I am the mediator, the Peace negotiator, I cannot take sides.”

Zelensky’s days are counted. He is an obstacle to Peace. But he is a puppet, supported by the falling-apart European Union (EU). According to Scott Ritter, Daniel Estulin and others, this unfriendly debate in the White House was staged, so that Zelensky’s character of undiplomatic lies and insults on President Putin, and on all those questioning his legitimacy, would be internationally exposed and the Ukrainian people and Parliament would ask for Zelensky’s resignation, or outright overthrow him. His popularity at home is below 10%.  According to Trump, it is 4%.

The Ukrainian people want Peace not war. This to the detriment of a split Europe, parts of whom [Germany, for one and some Nordic countries], against all reason and common sense, are seeking to continue war with Russia, instead of cooperation with Russia, which is what their economy badly needs.

Trump is a deal-maker, according to himself,

“I make deals for a living, always did. I’m a businessman, and deals are what makes me successful.”

It is, however, unlikely that President Trump would gamble Peace for a REEs mining concession in the Ukraine. This would be beyond the ethics, even of Trump, the deal-maker. Especially since Putin told him on an earlier occasion that Russia is one of the richest countries in rare earths, and they would gladly sell REEs to the United States.

However, China has by far the most REEs, an estimated 44 million metric tons. The country was also the world’s leading REEs producer in 2024 by a long shot, producing 270,000 MT. See this.

“Rare earths” are 17 metallic elements, comprising the lanthanide series and (usually) scandium and yttrium. They are key ingredients for manufacturing of lights, magnets, batteries, chips, catalytic converters, and are used in everything from cell phones to cars and, foremost, for the arms and weapons [WAR] industries; not for nothing are they in such high demand.

Immediately after the White House fiasco, Zelensky flew to London, where the British PM Keir Starmer organized a European summit, basically to counter the Trump Peace initiative. However, that didn’t seem to be so easy since within the EU there is growing division about spending – or not – hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money to support a war, killing ever more people. Also, the faltering European economies could use their money for economic recovery and development at home.

Therefore, Starmer announced to BBC that the UK, France and maybe one or two other EU countries [not mentioning war-mongering Germany], may together with Zelensky work on a Peace Plan for Ukraine, to eventually discuss it with President Trump. Starmer apparently hinted at the division within the EU, saying that he was seeking a “coalition of the willing”, rather than waiting for every individual country to come along.

If anything, Mr. Trump has apparently managed to bring a leading group of Europeans around to think and talk Peace rather than continue beating their war drums.

Gaza, Palestine

What about Peace in the Middle East?

Converting the current ceasefire into a lasting Peace, ending the atrocious, horrendous war – the genocide – by Israel against Palestine, especially Gaza – rebuilding Gaza and making Palestine a sovereign, fully independent nation, so that all the Palestinians that had left during the war, may return HOME, is an absolute priority.

Purely hypothetically, and thinking about President Trump’s “deal” skills, on this occasion they might even bring an ethical and fast solution. It could be a tripartite “deal”; Palestine, the US, and Russia, with each receiving about a third of the Gaza offshore gas proceeds. This would be a negotiated contractual settlement while all the gas would remain the property of Palestine.

The cost for reconstruction would be shared between the US and Palestine. The US being the co-aggressor with Israel, for largely funding the war and supplying most of the weaponry and war planes. There is no use to event try to have Israel help rebuild Gaza.

It can be safely estimated that Gaza’s offshore gas may be worth over a trillion US dollars. In an unequivocal no-nonsense manner, Donald Trump must keep his buddy, Netanyahu and Zionist Israel at bay. In 21st century-style, the MAGA President must and will be assertive: Israel has no right whatsoever to the Gaza gas. Thus, no intervention at all by Israel.

For those in the know – the world leaders, the WEF and those commanding it, as well as the UN – Israel, the real aggressor in this war, must immediately cease all aggressions against Gaza, Palestine, and her neighbors-at-large including Iran. Ambitions for Greater Israel must stop now. Lest all financial and military assistance from the US, Europe and potentially elsewhere will immediately cease, or being intercepted. This would bring about the immediate collapse of Israel, both economically and militarily.

In turn, Hamas would be dismantled. A new sub-government structure for Gaza, for example of a Provincial nature, within the  Palestine Government would be negotiated.

Future economic and military aid to Israel would be in the form of interest-bearing loans; no longer grants.

Once the “deal-maker” has reached that stage, reconstruction can begin, paid for by Gaza’s offshore gas which would be extracted by Russian expert Gas Corporations and marketed jointly by Russia and the US. According to “France 24 – Business”, reconstruction of Gaza would cost between 50 and 100 billion US dollars, and take at least five years (optimistic estimate). See video below.

Reuters reports (5 February 2025) that the World Bank, UN, European Union Interim Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (IRDNA), predicts more than US$ 50 billion will be required to rebuild Gaza.

Reconstruction is estimated to take between five and ten years. During the first three years US$ 20 billion would be needed. See this.

These are preliminary and linear estimates. As we know, life is not linear, but dynamic. Hence, cost predictions might significantly vary during reconstruction work.

The division between Palestine and Israel would return to the pre-1967 borders. The result MUST be a two-state solution, with two sovereign nations of equal rights. The natural resources, including water, under, on and above the ground of the two states would respectively belong to the two independent countries.

To secure the borders and the Peace, UN troops in equal force and ranks from the United States, Russia, Europe, and China would be discreetly patrolling the borders for at least ten years, longer if deemed necessary.

As mentioned before, this is a highly hypothetical and speculative scenario. But all things being equal, and with Peace an absolute priority and number ONE objective, it is a theoretically possible solution.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Rebuilding Ukraine for the Ukrainians and Gaza for the Gazans – As a Trump ‘Deal’? appeared first on LewRockwell.

AI, the shorthand symbol for artificial intelligence, is not merely a technological development that enhances productivity.  It is also an attack on the viability of most of humanity.  Elon Musk, who knows something about the subject, said recently that AI’s ability to be programmed to replace so many human jobs is leading us into communism in which everyone would be given the same income with which to purchase the goods and services produced by AI.

Policymakers and economists are unaware of the real threat of AI.  Instead, they worry about a dystopian world in which machines superior to humans have taken over.  This concern is a red herring. Machines are inanimate matter.  They are not alive.  They don’t have sentience.  Geeks confuse computation ability with the ability to think.  AI is programmed.  It can do tasks that humans can program it to do.  AI cannot program itself, because AI cannot think or create.  There is no spectrum at which at some point computational ability becomes thought.

A friend who is a software engineer told me recently, as I reported, that his employer told the engineers that they would be replaced in 3 years by AI.  This announcement gave them time to find a different kind of employment.

The announcement could be premature and wrong.  The employer could easily be carried along by false beliefs in AI’s potency. But it is plausible that if software engineering procedures can be programed into machines, the machines can use the program to produce the needed software for the application.  But it takes a human to tell AI what to come up with. AI has no way of knowing on its own.

A friend who was an accomplished architect told me some years ago that architects no longer needed to know how to design a building.  AI did it for them. The architect’s input was to give AI the parameters of the building. 

Many years ago a cab driver in NYC who was an engineering student told me that they still had to learn math, but never needed to use it, because they had software programs.

AI is most dangerous to routine and programmable jobs. What is not understood is that AI is not just another technological development that displaces one kind of work with another–producers of buggy whips and wagons replaced with producers of  cars, or  the replacement of the way of organizing work, such as the replacement of the putting out system of cloth production by factory production.  The difference between a dispersed work force and one concentrated in a factory is totally different from AI which replaces people, not less effective ways of organizing production or replacement of one product with another. AI eliminates jobs without creating new ones.  People are no longer necessary to do many jobs, and where are the replacement jobs?  The number of people with 120-130 IQs capable of doing high level work are limited in number.

Consider the offshoring of US manufacturing jobs, followed by research and design jobs.  Economists promised that new and better jobs would take the place of “dirty fingernail manufacturing jobs,” but they did not.

We know for an absolute fact that the American middle class has shrunk.  We know for an absolute fact that America’s once powerful manufacturing cities have shrunk in population by as much as 20%, leaving them without a tax base to support existing levels of  commitments and expenditure.  

As the replacement jobs for the offshored manufactured jobs as promised by Harvard and Dartmouth university economists did not happen, what jobs are going to replace the millions of jobs lost to AI?

It is possible that AI could be managed by humans to improve human productivity as any other capital investment would do instead of creating massive unemployment requiring a universal income.  But in capitalism profits are the god, and profits come from eliminating labor costs.  The corporations can end up with low cost production and no consumers with incomes to purchase.

A colleague and I are going to investigate, as best we can with our capabilities, whether AI can relieve people of the dreariness of so many jobs without destroying their lives. Can AI enhance life, or can it only leave humans without purpose?

The post AI: Friend or Foe? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Now that we know that the end goal for Trump and Elon is for us to live in a technocracy or a technate administered by a gov-corp, another step toward global government or a New World order, what would libertarianism and its founding leaders think about this?

I asked X’s AI tool Grok: What do Mises, Hayek and Rothbard and libertarianism say about technocracy?

They wouldn’t care for it. Grok’s response:

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and the broader libertarian tradition offer critical perspectives on technocracy, rooted in their emphasis on individual liberty, spontaneous order, and skepticism of centralized control. While they don’t address “technocracy” as a single, unified concept in identical terms, their works critique systems where technical experts wield authority over economic or social life, which aligns with technocracy’s core idea. Here’s how each thinker and libertarianism generally approach it:

Ludwig von Mises

Mises, an Austrian economist, didn’t explicitly target technocracy as a movement but critiqued centralized planning and expert-driven control, which technocracy often implies. In Human Action (1949), he argues that economic calculation is impossible without market prices, a point he developed in his 1920 essay “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” Technocracy, with its vision of engineers or scientists managing society based on efficiency, would fall under his critique of socialism—replacing market signals with bureaucratic or technical directives leads to inefficiency and tyranny. Mises saw the market as a decentralized process where individuals, not elites (technical or otherwise), coordinate resources through voluntary exchange. A technocratic system, even if well-intentioned, would stifle this by imposing top-down solutions, ignoring the subjective nature of human preferences.

Friedrich Hayek

Hayek’s critique is more direct and nuanced, particularly in The Road to Serfdom (1944) and “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945). He argued that centralized control—whether by politicians, planners, or technical experts—fails because no single authority can possess the dispersed, tacit knowledge held by individuals across society. Technocracy, with its faith in experts optimizing systems, exemplifies what Hayek called the “fatal conceit”—the belief that human reason can fully design complex social orders. In The Constitution of Liberty (1960), he warns against “scientism,” the misapplication of scientific methods to social affairs, which technocrats often embody. Hayek admired technical progress but insisted it thrives best under spontaneous order, not engineered governance. A technocratic regime, to him, risks authoritarianism as experts inevitably coerce compliance to enforce their plans.

Murray Rothbard

Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist, took a harder line, blending Mises’s economics with a radical rejection of all coercive authority. In Man, Economy, and State (1962) and For a New Liberty (1973), he dismantles any system—technocratic or otherwise—that overrides individual sovereignty. Technocracy, to Rothbard, would be another flavor of statism, where “so-called experts” (he’d likely scoff at the term) impose their will, violating property rights and free markets. He’d see technocrats as a new aristocracy, cloaking their power grabs in scientific jargon. Rothbard’s disdain for government-funded science (e.g., his critiques of NASA in The Logic of Action) suggests he’d view technocratic schemes as parasitic, relying on taxation rather than voluntary cooperation. His ideal—pure market anarchy—leaves no room for technocratic overlords.

Libertarianism Broadly

Libertarianism, drawing from these thinkers, is inherently skeptical of technocracy. It champions individual liberty and free markets over any centralized authority, technical or not. The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s, led by figures like Howard Scott, proposed replacing politicians with engineers and managing resources via “energy credits”—a system libertarians would decry as collectivist and anti-market. Modern libertarians, like those at the Mises Institute or Cato Institute, often critique technocratic trends (e.g., central banking, regulatory overreach) as distortions of spontaneous order. They’d argue that technological progress flourishes under liberty, not expert diktats—pointing to Silicon Valley’s early deregulated days versus today’s bureaucratic creep.

Synthesis

Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard would agree that technocracy misjudges human nature and economics. Mises would focus on its impracticality (no price mechanism), Hayek on its hubris (knowledge problem), and Rothbard on its immorality (coercion). Libertarianism echoes this, favoring decentralized innovation over engineered utopias. They’d likely see technocracy as a shiny veneer on the old problem of power: it promises efficiency but delivers control. As Hayek put it, “The more the state ‘plans,’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual”—a sentiment that cuts technocracy to its core.

The post What Do Mises, Rothbard and Hayek Say About Technocracy? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Convincing large swaths of the Western public that the Ukrainian war was an unprovoked act of Russian aggression undoubtedly stands as one of the great coups in the history of propaganda art.

Nothing could, in fact, be further from the truth than the continually repeated claim that the Russian incursion into Ukraine was “unprovoked.”

Anyone not in denial about the basic facts of the case must see that the bloody three-year-old war was caused by NATO’s eastward expansion, which was driven by the heedless transatlantic elites.

An insightful commentator named Arnaud Bertrand put together a powerful, eye-opening thread on X (formerly Twitter) that puts to lie the Establishment canard about the “unprovoked” Russian aggression.

Bertrand’s thread is a must-see for anyone who sincerely wishes to know the true origin of the Ukrainian war. You can view his thread by clicking here. You can also see it by clicking on the graphic below. It will be enlightening for anyone interested in learning about the real cause of the conflict and going beyond the shameless propaganda spouted by the fake establishment media.

Bertrand skillfully collected pronouncements from distinguished politicians, scholars, diplomats, and thinkers from across the political spectrum who had warned that NATO’s march toward Ukraine was a misguided policy that would eventually provoke a war with Russia and result in a disaster of grand proportions. These warnings date back more than two decades to Russia’s invasion.

Here are some of the distinguished personages included in Bertrand’s collection:

• As early as 1997, fifty prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to President Bill Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion. It’s a “policy error of historic proportions,” they wrote in their missive.
• Henry Kissinger wrote that “to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country” and that it needs a policy of “reconciliation.” He insisted that “Ukraine should not join NATO.”
• George Kennan was the architect of the U.S. Cold War strategy and is considered by many to be America’s greatest foreign policy mastermind. Kennan warned as early as 1998 that NATO expansion was a “tragic mistake” that would likely draw a “bad reaction from Russia.”
• One of the world’s most famous public intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, said in 2015: “The idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader.” He also said that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO “is not protecting Ukraine; it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
• John Mearsheimer, one of the world’s leading geopolitical scholars, famously said in 2015: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked […] What we’re doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
• Jack F. Matlock Jr., former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was “the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat […] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
• In his memoir, Bill Clinton’s defense secretary William Perry wrote that NATO enlargement seemed to be the cause of “the rupture in relations with Russia.”
• Bill Burns, former CIA director, wrote in 2008 that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]” and “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
• Malcolm Fraser, prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that “the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia.” He added that this would lead to a “difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
• Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned one year before the war that “[pushing] Ukraine into NATO […] is stupid on every level.”
• Pat Buchanan, assistant and special consultant to U.S. Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, wrote in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: “By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation.”
• Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the internationally sought-after analyst and economic advisor, warned in a column in the Financial Times just weeks before the war broke out that “NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine and of global peace should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia.”
• Vladimir Pozner, a highly respected Russian-American journalist, said in 2018 that NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to Russians. He urged a compromise in which Ukraine “will not become a member of NATO.”
• Stephen Cohen, a well-known scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that “if we move NATO forces toward Russia’s borders […] it’s obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off; this is existential.”
• John Pilger, the legendary journalist, wrote in 2014 that Ukraine had become a “CIA theme park” and that this situation would lead to “a NATO-run guerrilla war.”

These are only some of the experts whose prophetic predictions Bertrand assembled. What his material makes very clear is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was as inevitable as it was predictable, given the injudicious policy of NATO’s eastward enlargement.

For decades, some of the world’s distinguished thinkers have warned against the mistaken course and predicted the disaster that is now unfolding before our eyes. The blame for this lies not with Vladimir Putin but with the foolish Western leadership.

The Kremlin’s foray into Ukraine was a foreseeable response to an uncalled-for and deranged drive to the Russian borders by the Western military alliance.

As seen above, the Russian incursion was by no means unprovoked. It was, in fact, flagrantly provoked by the misguided actions of the collective West’s leadership, which heedlessly pursued a policy that Russia viewed as an existential threat to its security.

Over the years, Russia’s chiefs have protested and repeatedly pleaded with Western leaders to stop. They have warned of unacceptable strategic positions and red lines.

In the fall of 2021, the Kremlin sent a draft treaty to NATO asking that Ukraine be excluded from the alliance in a last-ditch attempt to avoid military confrontation. In his later testimony to the European Union Parliament about this event, then NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg stated haughtily, “of course, we didn’t sign that.” A few months later, Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine.

Impudently disregarding Russia’s legitimate security concerns while relentlessly driving NATO eastward against the advice and warnings of wise men, this predictable and unnecessary war has been provoked by the foolish transatlantic globalists.

To say that the Russian incursion was “unprovoked” is about as accurate as the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective.” The same elites and the same corrupt media have peddled both brazen lies.

The post The Ukrainian War Was Provoked by NATO appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump declared a triumphalist vision and a golden age for the United States this week.  Yet, had it been an autopsy, the Democratic side of the chamber presented like a giant deflated left lung with just a touch of pink.

Trump has known for many years that the United States is not healthy, nor on a healthy track. “America is Back!” is aspirational, but it takes more than a good slogan to coax, push, and inspire an over-stressed, tired, broke-ass nation to peace and prosperity.

With his New York bluntness occasionally revealing a soft heart, Trump makes me think of Dr. Ron Paul – the kindest and wisest of men, with his fist cheerfully raised at the deep state for the past 50 years.  Trump’s aim – to align America’s actions and principles with fairness, prosperity and peace – is Paulian.  Both men share an energetic and uncontrived political radicalism in support of this vision.  I don’t know if God saved Trump from a deep state bullet for a higher purpose in 2025, as he has mentioned.  I do know that the limited government mantra that Ron Paul revived over 40 years ago, from the old anti-war Right, is the reason we have a populist President today, who wants to end wars, shrink the bureaucracy, and abandon serfdom to the state.

Trump’s foreign policy message to Congress was mainly about tariffs, and an incipient peace in Ukraine.  Trump understands the existent Russian victory, he wants organic elections in Ukraine, and the end of the Zelensky era and NATO expansion.  Trump’s approach is pragmatic, realistic, popular – and radical only because it simultaneously breaks up the revenue stream, the narrative, and the credibility of the corrupt oligarchies of Europe and America.

Trump mentioned another Republican president, economic protectionist and territorial expansionist William McKinley, first elected in 1896.  Trump admires McKinley, and McKinley’s role in the 1896 Republican Party resurgence. Thomas DiLorenzo recently observed, “…the Republican party by that time stood for imperialism, emboldened by its conquest of the South and its campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians from 1865-1890.”  McKinley, incidentally, was also responsible for the 1900 Gold Standard Act, making all issued paper dollars redeemable in gold, an act abrogated by FDR in 1933.

It is not hard to see Trump as more McKinley, and less Paul.  Yet, despite his affection for tariffs and mercantilism, Trump seems to have simultaneously and schizophrenically internalized the opposing idea that “if goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

Trump’s explanation of his rare earth deal with Ukraine is as much Bastiat as it is crony imperialist McKinley.  McKinley learned economics “as an Army supply officer in Lincoln’s army.”  Trump learned economics from his successful father, and the rough and tumble New York real estate and construction world.  McKinley launched troops to take Hawaii, to finish off the Plains Indians, and subdue the Philippines;  Trump believes “if we are economically in Ukraine, it is more a deterrent of Russian or NATO violence [than a standing army would ever be].”  To be fair, Trump’s “shared investment” in Ukrainian “rare earths” after a 2014 US-fomented coup and civil war reeks of American hypocrisy, disaster state-capitalism, and old style imperialism.

And yet, Trump implied he was late to Congress on Wednesday because he was waiting for confirmation that a Blackrock-led consortium had purchased two ports on both sides of the Panama Canal.  Like it or not, Trump sees an American investment presence – American “ownership” as a healthy substitute for western armies, whether in Ukraine, in Panama, in Greenland, or in Gaza.  He sees American “ownership” as a way to reduce military expenditures structurally and substantially, while enriching all sides.

We can – because of Trump – visualize a lasting peace in a neutral Ukraine.  We can imagine a more American-friendly Panama Canal.  We can chuckle nervously with Vance and Johnson about the 56,000 mostly Native Inuits in Greenland and how we will make them “very safe and very rich.”  However, most Trump observers remain shocked at his proposal for Gaza, which amounts to funding and assisting Israel’s bipartisan and bloody conclusion of decades of slow genocide in Gaza.

Over two million Palestinians were crowded into the Gaza Strip during previous Israeli wars and by habitual Zionist expansion, in repeated spasmodic bouts of ethnic cleansing since 1948.  In the past seventeen months, over 45,000 Gazans killed by the IDF were officially identified and buried.  Gazan corpses decomposing under collapsed buildings, unreachable and unidentifiable, sometimes being eaten by dogs and cats, or frozen to death, or dying for lack of medical care, pushes the death toll to closer to 150,000 or more.  Of course, Trump would never consider ethnic cleansing the 56,000 native men, women and children who live on top of the Greenland’s minerals, fresh water, strategic lines of communication and passage, and energy reserves.

Trump’s “Gaza without Gazans” plan was countered by Egypt.  To be funded by Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Egyptian plan includes Gazans remaining on their land, as part of a necessary and committed workforce to rebuild their wasted hospitals, schools, universities, factories, parks, and playgrounds. Trump rejected this plan within hours of hearing about it.  In shocking contrast to open claims of national interest made in the Greenland offer, Israel and the US are silent about what they want in Gaza: full ownership of Gaza’s offshore gas deposits, its strategic location, and a “final solution” for Palestinian physical and moral resistance to the Zionist project.

Like every US president since 1963, President Trump is a shill for Israel’s government.   Trump’s biggest donors, and his appointments, his musings of owning Gaza, and his actions bear this out.

William McKinley was not a particularly smart man. He was shaped by his experience in the Union Army during and after the Civil War, and by a political career beholden to the crony capitalists of his day.  Trump has been shaped by different forces, and the result of his life experience has blinded him to Zionism’s excessive and never-ending financial, military and moral cost to America.  Trump likes to talk about getting what we pay for with NATO, in Ukraine, of fair trade and shared prosperity.  As we saw in his address to Congress, and in every one of his rallies, Trump knows many details about innocent people who have had terrible crimes committed against them, and he seeks justice – with one massive exception.

A“shill” endorses a product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.”  Is Israel a tiny bit concerned about Trump’s second term sincerity, given where the rest if his policies seem to be heading?  Is this why, despite getting everything AIPAC has demanded, including bans on pro-Palestinian assemblies and speech on college campuses, Netanyahu’s cabinet doesn’t seem particularly grateful, or elated with the White House?  Is this why AIPAC and its reliable proxies like Tom Cotton in the Senate are panicked about the upcoming confirmation of Ridge Colby?  Is why the we cannot watch the BBC documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” or find a showing of last week’s Oscar winner “No Other Land?”

Present-day Israeli leadership will never allow Trump to own Gaza, nor to define and dictate the strategic pace of their limitless regional land grabs. They expect the US President hand over hundreds of billions in war support, and to endorse all of Israel’s crimes sincerely, without pretense, exactly as he was paid to do.  If not corrected, Trump’s “Israel exception” will completely destroy his much touted “Golden Age” legacy, and bury America with it.

The post Understanding Trump’s Foreign Policy – and Where It Might Lead appeared first on LewRockwell.