Lew Rockwell Institute

What has happened to the Western World that causes it to deny and bury its successes because the successes allegedly embarrass nonwhites? See this.

For decades the majority of Western intellectuals, “artists,” and university professors have worked assiduously to demonize Western accomplishments as accomplished via looting of superior non-white cultures.  Not long ago a Swedish anti-white activist made a “documentary” “proving” that the original inhabitants of Sweden were black. How blacks survived such low vitamin D absorption from such weak sunshine he did not say.  

It did not matter.  The Western intellectual world was delighted at this “proof” that the accomplishments attributed to whites were really an appropriation of black accomplishments.

The problem with this satisfaction is that there are no black or non-white precedents for Shakespeare from whom Shakespeare can be said to have stolen his work.  The solution is to deep-six Shakespeare for being a racist for embarrassing non-whites with the sublimity of his art.

We have reached the point in Western Civilization to the extent it still exists at which success is equated with “white supremacy.” As the Western intellectuals have arranged it, the only way the West cannot be racist is to be a failure.  This is why everywhere in the West the governments are making the Western countries into Sodom and Gomorrah Towers of Babel. 

For decades  Shakespeare, who in my student days was the example of the best use of the English language, is today portrayed in university courses as a racist, sexist, homophobic, white supremacist.

In Shakespeare’s day there was no such thing as a white supremacist. But facts are not a component of Western “scholarship” today.  The purpose of Western scholarship is denunciation of “racist” Western civilization.

Anti-western intellectuals use criticism as a weapon. Its object is an enemy it wants not to refute but to destroy.  Criticism is no longer an end in itself but simply a means. It essential pathos is indignation. Its essential task, denunciation. Criticism is hand to hand combat, and in such a combat the point is not whether the opponent is noble, equal or interesting, the point is to strike him.

Those of you who are well educated will recognize that I am quoting Karl Marx on the purpose and use of criticism. My use of Marx does not mean that I am a Marxist.  It is my illustration that Western intellectual and liberal-left professors are, whether they have sufficient education to realize it, utilizing Marx’s tools for overturning a society.

For years American and British universities that are homes to Woke academics have refused to teach Shakespeare, thus depriving an English B.A. degree of content. Shakespeare, say the dumbshit professors, is racist, because he allegedly links beauty with whiteness.

The London theater  has initiated “anti-racist” seminars to discuss “decolonizing” Shakespeare’s plays.

So, what are white ethnicities confronted  with?  

They are confronted with being coerced by their own governments and intellectuals into accepting white inferiority. Whites can only justify their existence by submitting to the rule of non-whites. Jean Raspail correctly described Europe’s demise in 1973 in The Camp of the Saints.

If you haven’t read this book, you do not know your future.  It is independent of Trump, Macron, Putin, Zelensky. It is happening despite any Trump regime deportations of immigrant-invaders.

The simple fact is that white people are doomed, because their intellectuals, schools and governments have convinced them that they are racists guilty of racism, and that justice requires white ethnicities to accept second class citizenship in law.

The post The British Repudiate Shakespeare Because His Success ‘Benefits the Ideology of White Supremacy’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

On May 4 2014 I wrote about the February coup aftermath in Ukraine:

Two days ago a mob, supported by the fascists Right Sektor, killed over 30 federalist Ukrainians in Odessa by pushing them from their camp into a building and then setting fire to it. Those who escaped the massacre, not the perpetrators, were rounded up by police. Today pro-federalism people besieged the police headquarter in Odessa until the police released those it had earlier arrested.
…
The U.S. plan for Ukraine seems to be to bait Russia into an occupation. This would destroy EU-Russia relations, embolden NATO and help the U.S. to keep the EU as a secondary partner under its control. There would be lots of economic upsides for the U.S. in such a situation. Selling more arms and increasing energy market shares are only the starters.

There are two reasons to believe that this plan will fail:
…
Without Russian intervention and without German support the U.S. campaign against Russia is unlikely to reach its secondary target of isolating Russia. The primary target, Sevastopol harbor in Crimea, was already lost when Russia reunified with the island.

What is left to do then for Washington is to create more chaos in Ukraine and to hope that somehow out of total chaos some new chance may arise to stick it to Russia. For lack of real direction that strategy is also unlikely to succeed.

I was unfortunately wrong with the last sentence though it took the U.S. eight more years to succeed.

But it is the first paragraph I what to refer to today. The current two most popular pieces on the website of Strana are echoing it (machine translation):

From the first story (machine translation):

Demyan Ganul, who was killed today in Odessa, is a well-known radical activist, a native of the “Right Sector”. Later he founded his own organization “Street Front”.

Ganul was known since 2014, when he participated in the events of May 2, when dozens of people were killed in the House of Trade Unions. Later, he organized actions against Odessa residents, who laid flowers in honor of the burned-out anti-Maidan activists.
…
Ganul is also widely known for fighting in Odessa with “imperial” and Soviet monuments – to Catherine, Pushkin, and Soviet soldiers. He disrupted concerts of Russian performers, and also harassed residents of the city who spoke out for the Russian language.

Recently, Ganul actively “fought” against those who criticized the mobilization.

The most scandalous case occurred this summer, when Ganul beat up an Odessa fitness trainer after he criticized the recruiting office. After that, the coach disappeared and ended up, presumably, in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where he was bullied and probably raped.

Ganul himself, as far as is known, did not fight and was engaged in volunteering. But not without scandals. In 2023, he was beaten up, as reported, by the military of the “Foreign Legion” – because Ganul collected money for a car, but did not give it away.

Ganul celebrated each anniversary of the May 2 massacre by posting pictures of himself eating a shashlik, i.e. burned flash.

The guy was a Nazi, a brute and a thug.

He was shot on the street with a pistol. When he was down on the ground the killer put another bullet into his head (vid) to make sure that he was dead. The murderer then walked away.

There are many such Nazis in Ukraine who are too coward to take part in the war but ‘volunteer’ in support of police. They are the muscles needed to run various extortion rackets.

During his lifetime, Ganul was a scandalous person and had numerous conflicts. And not only with pro-Russian circles.

The motives for Ganul’s murder may not lie in the political sphere at all.

The victim has been engaged in volunteering since 2014, and also worked part-time as an “activist”, organizing actions against Odessa businessmen, politicians and city authorities.

For example, he actively supported the Odessa businessman Degas, who is in conflict with the Mayor’s office.

In addition, there have long been rumors in the city that Ganul is actually engaged in reket – looking for “victims” – cafes, restaurants, fitness clubs where you can find fault with something, for example, the staff speaks Russian. And then “helps” the owners of establishments.

In other words, he had many enemies. And not only for ideological reasons.

The other most popular news item at Strana relates to yesterday’s judgment by the European Court for Human Rights against the authorities of Ukraine:

In the case of Vyacheslavova and Others v. Ukraine the Court held that there had been violations of the right to life/investigation on account of the authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014, to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events. It also held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life in respect of one applicant concerning the delay in handing over her father’s body for burial.

The courts press release describes the struggle that led to the case:

Maidan activists started setting fire to the tents. A group of pro-Russian protesters on the roof of the Trade Union Building threw Molotov cocktails at the crowd below; pro-unity activists retaliated by throwing Molotov cocktails at the building. Gunshots were reportedly fired from both sides.

Despite numerous calls to the fire brigade, which was less than 1 km away, the fire service regional head instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order.

At 7.45 p.m., a fire broke out in the Trade Union Building. The fire extinguishers in the building did not work. The police called the fire brigade, to no avail. Some of the people in the building including Mr Dmitriyev (application no. 59339/17) tried to escape by jumping from the upper windows. He survived the fall and was taken to an ambulance. A number of people fell to their deaths, including the son of Ms Radzykhovska (application no. 59339/17) and the son of Ms Nikitenko (application no. 47092/18). Video footage shows pro-unity protesters making makeshift ladders and platforms from a stage in the square and using them to rescue people trapped in the building. Other video footage shows pro-unity protesters attacking people who had jumped or had fallen.

The regional head of the fire service finally ordered fire engines to be sent to the scene. Fire ladders were used to rescue people from the upper-floor windows. Firefighters entered the building at around 8.30 p.m. and put out the fire. The police arrested 63 anti-Maidan activists who were still inside the building or on the roof. They were released two days later, when a group of several hundred anti- Maidan protesters stormed the local police station where they were being held.

The fire claimed 42 lives.

There are several others well know perpetrators of the May 2 massacre, like Demyan Ganul, who are still running free in Ukraine. Their unrestricted activities underline the necessity of denazification in Ukraine.

May the ECHR judgment and the death of Demyan Ganul give some solace to the victims of the May 2 2014 massacre.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama. 

The post Echoes of the May 2, 2014, Odessa Massacre appeared first on LewRockwell.

The last time we went through a great reset was when the Covid-19 pandemic shut down the world in 2020. Great meaning “remarkable in magnitude,” as defined by Merriam Webster, not great as in how we commonly use it as “good.” For many it was far from great—brutal, even. Heartbreaking, challenging, a time of loss and confusion. Still, we can’t deny that our nation and world went through a reset of indescribable proportions.

Whether or not you’ve noticed that our country is going through its own reset—which is impacting the world at large—it seems to me that many of us are also going through our own personal resets, great or otherwise. Instead of just haphazardly dealing with life and circumstances as they come our way, what if we thoughtfully approached the different areas of our lives to see where we might shore up any weaknesses, while we’re able? What if we considered that our own personal reset was, in a sense, part of a revolution?

For me, the past month just about knocked me out and I quickly realized that I had not been properly prepared in a few areas. World events aside, I worked at my publishing job every day for more than three weeks straight to meet some aggressive deadlines, and also endured some major transitions on my team that left me both heartbroken and overworked with no help toward meeting those deadlines, pushing me once again into an unsustainable survival mode. This, while also navigating some highly unusual personal and financial situations. I felt like the systems and institutions I had relied on for years—or decades, in some cases—were no longer a source of stability, and I was beginning to feel like I was living in an alternate reality. In short, I was mentally and physically depleted.

Can you relate on some level?

Now that the dust is beginning to settle (at least in my work life), I’m suddenly in need of a decently sized, if not great, reset for myself. This calls for a look at my life and lifestyle. If you feel called for something similar, I invite you to join me on this little exploration.

Why bother?

Because, according to the great wisdom of Switchfoot, “We were meant to live for so much more.”

Lightheartedness aside, let’s not forget that. There’s more available than merely surviving—and it’s also okay if that’s all we’re doing right now.Subscribe

What We Can Borrow from the Pandemic Reset

Whether or not you’re ready for a major life overhaul, it seems to me that with our nation going through a massive transition, we’ll need to individually and collectively consider how to navigate these times. I sense the need for us to—shall we say—“get ahead of things” while we’re still able. Because when I think back to what the pandemic forced upon us, a few things come to mind as far as major lifestyle shifts that may prove to be useful now.

• Forced Slowdown: Lockdowns and restrictions forced many of us to slow down, spend more time at home, and re-evaluate our priorities. This led to a greater appreciation for simple pleasures, like spending time with family, connecting with nature, and pursuing hobbies.
• Increased Focus on Health and Well-being: The pandemic heightened awareness of health and well-being, leading to increased interest in exercise, healthy eating, and mental health practices.
• Strengthened Local Connections and Community: With travel restricted, many people rediscovered their local communities, supporting local businesses and building stronger connections with their neighbors. There’s a renewed appreciation for local communities, with people seeking connection and support close to home.
• Increased Intentionality: This time prompted many people to live more intentionally, making conscious choices about how they spend their time, who they connect with, and what they prioritize.
• Greater Flexibility and Adaptability: The experience of navigating a global crisis has increased people’s resilience and adaptability. They’re more prepared to embrace change and adjust to new circumstances.

The pandemic undoubtedly had a significant impact on how we live, work, and connect with each other. It has accelerated some existing trends and created new ones, shaping the landscape of lifestyle in the years to come—and these shifts offer opportunities for us to design lives that are more aligned with our values and priorities—even when our nation’s values are in flux and perhaps contradict our own. Still, hope is not lost; this is a chance to not only create a lifestyle that’s comfortable or successful, but a life that is meaningful, fulfilling, and sustainable.

When to Reset: Recognizing the Signals

I find it next-to-impossible to want to reset in the middle of a major transition or during a crisis. It’s enough to just get by and to do the critical jobs at hand. Knowing when to initiate a reset is just as important as knowing how. It’s not always about waiting for a full-blown crisis to hit (in fact, I recommend you don’t wait until then; try to get ahead of it, if you can—hence my writing this today). Often, subtle signals indicate that a recalibration is needed, and this is a reminder to not ignore them.

If you’re smackdab in the middle of one of life’s storms, now might not be the time. Consider bookmarking this page for later when you’re ready. But if, like me, you’re able to catch your breath and “let the snow globe settle,” (as my husband likes to say), then maybe it’s time to take a simple inventory.

Sometimes it’s obvious when there’s an area of life that’s plain out of whack and in dire need of a reset. Other times, it can simply feel as though something is “off”—just not quite right. In those times, I like to visit the Wheel of Life chart, which, according to Positive Psychology, “came from industry pioneer Paul J. Meyer in the 1960s to help people realize their goals.” Perhaps you’ve heard of this before as it’s a popular tool used by coaches and therapists and professionals in the personal growth space. My husband, who works as a professional coach, has used this in his practice with his clients, but we’ve been using this together long before then. Some professionals, like author and coach Brendan Burchard in his High Performance Planner, recommend doing this weekly as a way to help you to stay on top of priorities, making minor adjustments as needed instead of major overhauls in an emergency.

I feel like we need to keep things uncomplicated these days, and find the Wheel of Life a simple yet useful tool to help gain clarity when everything seems chaotic or when I don’t know where to begin—like now. I’ve discovered that oftentimes it’s maybe only one or two areas that have gone off the rails that make it feel like everything else is in crisis. Hopefully, you’ll discover a couple of key areas that—when given a little time and attention—will create more peace and fulfillment, and spill over to all areas of your life, providing an overall sense of balance and harmony.

The segment names for the areas can vary, and there are dozens if not hundreds of models available online, but I’ve created a simple traditional model below for you to print out and use to get you started. Feel free to add your own categories for those things that are important to you. This could include things like home environment, community contribution, creativity, political activism, or even a specialized metric that you want to track.

Before you fill this out, let’s take a look at some key indicators or signs across these areas of life that may be telling you it’s a time for a reset.

Career/Work

Signs: Persistent dread of work, consistently working more than forty hours per week, chronic lateness, decreased productivity, frequent conflicts with colleagues, a feeling of stagnation, role or process confusion, a persistent sense of overwhelm, feeling like you can just never get back on track let alone ahead, or when work consistently drains your energy instead of providing fulfillment, it’s time to reassess.

Money & Finances

Signs: Financial anxiety, living paycheck to paycheck despite adequate income, accumulating unnecessary debt, neglecting savings, feeling a sense of helplessness regarding your financial situation, or when financial stress consistently impacts your well-being, it’s time to take control and reset your financial habits.

Health (Physical & Mental)

Signs: Unexplained fatigue, frequent illnesses, changes in sleep or appetite, increased irritability, persistent sadness or anxiety, neglecting exercise, or using unhealthy coping mechanisms, when your physical or mental health is consistently compromised, or when you receive a professional diagnosis or lab results outside of normal standards, it’s a clear signal to prioritize well-being.

Partner/Love Relationship

Signs: Decreased intimacy, frequent arguments, communication breakdowns, feeling emotionally distant, a sense of resentment, romantic curiosity about other people, or when the connection with your partner feels strained or lost, it’s time to refocus on the relationship.

Family & Friendships

Signs: Feeling isolated or lonely, neglecting social connections, experiencing frequent conflicts, feeling burdened by relationships, feeling a lack of emotional support, not having anyone to have meaningful conversations with, or when your social connections are a source of stress rather than support, it’s time to reset your social life.

Personal Growth

Signs: Feeling stagnant or unfulfilled, losing interest in hobbies, lacking motivation, feeling a sense of purposelessness, or when you feel a disconnect from your passions, it’s time to reignite your sense of purpose.

Fun/Recreation

Signs: Never having time for leisure activities, feeling constantly stressed or overwhelmed, losing your sense of humor, feeling like life is all work and no play, or when you consistently neglect activities that bring you joy, it’s time to prioritize fun and relaxation.

Read the Whole Article

The post Now Is The Time For a ‘Great Reset’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Tuesday’s episode of the Peter Schiff Show, Peter Schiff tackles the chaotic state of the markets following another round of tariff increases from President Trump. Peter critiques the logic behind tariffs, examines the unraveling of consensus trades like the AI investment frenzy, and highlights potential pitfalls facing American investors who have placed misguided faith in dollar strength. He also reflects on the recent turbulence in the stock market, warning listeners about the dangers of overlooking fundamental economics in favor of politically-driven narratives.

Opening with an overview of the recent turmoil in the stock market, Peter puts the market drop into historical context, underscoring how perception can overshadow reality when analyzing market moves:

But anyway, so the stock market yesterday was a big drop. The Dow at one point was down over 1,000 points, which I know is not that much when you’re talking about a Dow above 40,000. So a 1,000 point drop in the Dow is not what it used to be a couple of decades ago. Remember, the ’87 stock market crash, the big crash, was 508 points because the Dow was 2,800 or something like that. But we’ve had a lot of 1,000 point drops in the Dow, but they always grab the headline because it still sounds like a lot. It’s a big number.

The volatility was largely triggered by new tariff announcements. Peter voices concern over Trump’s latest tariff hike on Canadian aluminum and steel, outlining the downstream consequences for American businesses and consumers:

But we got some negative positive news on tariffs. First Trump is going to double the tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel from 25% to 50%, which is a big problem for every company that needs steel and aluminum to make something. Those are important parts of automobiles, housing, appliances, aircraft. We use a lot of those metals, and now they’re going to be a lot more expensive. Trump announced that. The markets didn’t like that.

Peter argues that the widespread optimism around tariffs inflating the U.S. dollar was fundamentally flawed from the start. He reiterates his earlier warnings, now proven accurate, that protectionist tariffs would ultimately weaken, rather than strengthen, the dollar:

I said that as the dollar was rallying, and everybody was saying, ‘Oh, the dollar is going to go up because Trump’s going to impose tariffs, and the tariffs are good for the dollar.’ I kept saying, ‘No, they’re not.’ They’re not good for the dollar. Now that we actually have the tariffs and they’ve started, the dollar is tanking. Part of the reason that people thought that foreigners will pay the tariffs is they said, ‘Well, the dollar is going to go up, and so those imports are going to be cheaper because of the currency, and that will offset the tariff because the dollar will be so much stronger that we’ll get these products cheaper.’

Continuing his critique of misguided investment narratives, Peter takes aim at the crypto craze, ridiculing the notion that countries competing to amass Bitcoin constitutes sound economic policy:

The other nonsense they were saying is it’s going to be like a race, like an arms race. Once the U.S. starts buying Bitcoin, well, then every country is going to want to buy it. It’s going to be a race to see which country can get the most Bitcoin. That’s the race that you want to lose, right? Because whatever country has the least Bitcoin wins, right? Whoever has the most loses because you blow money buying nothing.

Peter emphasizes that the tide is turning in the marketplace, claiming vindication for his long-held view favoring foreign markets, commodities, gold, and gold mining stocks over U.S. domestic equities:

The entire Trump trade is reversing, and it’s playing out the way I believed it would in favor of foreign markets, commodities, gold, gold mining stocks, the opposite of what people expected. … People said, you know, I’m not worried now, Trump’s going to pay down the debt, the problems are solved, Trump’s going to make America great again, I don’t want to invest abroad. I don’t think I’m going to buy US stocks, and the absolute worst thing you could have done, because not only did you buy into the peak of an overvalued US market, and you’re already down considerably, but you’ve missed out on the rise in the foreign stocks, in gold stocks, and it’s just getting started.

Further illustrating the illogic of punitive trade barriers, Peter scrutinizes Trump’s hostile rhetoric against Canada, highlighting the inefficacy of such retaliations:

Donald Trump earlier today said that he was going to destroy– because he got really pissed off at Canada because they retaliated with some tariffs and then they threatened some export tariffs on energy, electricity, which comes from Canada down here. He got particularly offended and he said something like, ‘I’m going to destroy Canada. It’s going to be biblical. It’ll be in the history books. I’m going to destroy Canadian manufacturing.’ Well, how is he going to do that? Assuming that Trump made it impossible for Americans to buy anything coming out of Canada, it wouldn’t destroy Canadian manufacturing.

Finally, Peter reiterates his call to action, urging the U.S. to reject isolationist tariffs and instead focus on fostering genuine economic competitiveness rooted in sound fiscal policy, deregulation, and free markets:

What we need to do is to make America a more competitive place to manufacture without the tariffs. Then people will make the investments if it’s not artificial. We can’t be dependent on a barrier to competition. Of course, again, those barriers end up making a lot of our companies less competitive globally because now they have to buy their imported parts at a higher price and now they have to export it, and they’re not as competitive as foreign producers. We have to make America attractive on its own.

This originally appeared on SchiffGold.com.

The post We Can’t Rely on Trade Barriers appeared first on LewRockwell.

There’s a great moment in Henry James’s short story The Aspern Papers, when the reader realizes that the narrator—who seems like a cultured and sympathetic scholar—is actually a ruthless and deceptive weasel. Because James was such a cool and subtle writer, the reader doesn’t see it coming until the old woman whose privacy the narrator is plundering declares that he is a scoundrel. At that moment the reader realizes, “Holy smokes, the lady is right. This guy is a self-serving jerk.”

Years ago I knew a very brave Austrian journalist who covered Iraq after U.S. forces withdrew and let ISIS walk into the place and turn it into hell on earth. Listening to his tale of horror, I asked myself, “Is it possible that Saddam Hussein—for all of his tyranny—was, relatively speaking, the good guy, while we Americans—who wrecked the place and turned it over to devils—are the killer angels?

I had the same thought years later while visiting wounded soldiers at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto. They were just a few of the tens of thousands of men who’d sustained traumatic brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the by the time I visited them in 2012, they been largely forgotten by their people, while their families—often young mothers with children—were left to deal with the wreckage. We, the American public, had moved on from Iraq and didn’t want to hear about it anymore.

I got to be pals with their treating psychiatrist, who told me privately over dinner that most of his medical colleagues at the VA were, in his experience, the most dishonest careerists he’d ever encountered.

Recently I’ve been following the news that, since the “bad guy” Assad was overthrown in Syria, the place has been taken over mostly by former Al Qaeda terrorists. Again, who is the “bad guy”—Assad or the U.S. who supported a band of homicidal fanatics?

Then there is the news the U.S., British, and German intelligence agencies have known all along that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab with U.S. biotechnology, mostly developed by Professor Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill. Over the years, Baric has received hundreds of millions of grant money from Anthony Fauci’s NIAID. Again, who are the bad guys?

Now we come to the ultimate question, the mere posing of which will likely cause a large cohort of Americans to lose their minds—namely, is it possible that we (the United States) are the bad guys in this showdown with Russia over Ukraine?

By all accounts, Vladimir Putin has long been one the most moderate, pro-Western politicians in Russia. Oh, I know, I know, Putin is a ruthless character with a shady KGB background.

On the other hand, do the American people really think that an idealistic liberal who listens to NPR and just wants everyone to be friends is going to assume power in Russia and govern the vast, multi-ethnic, multi-religion country? The 19th century Czar, Alexander II, was an idealistic, liberal chap who freed the serfs in 1861. In return, a student revolutionary assassinated him.

Since World War I, when we celebrated that the “Yanks are comin’” (bearing Spanish Flu) to save the world from Prussian militarism, we Americans have become far too conditioned to believe—in the most unexamined way—that we are the good guys, and that the rest of the world is infested with bad guys.

Is it possible that we (the U.S.) are the bad guys?

The Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, once pointed out that none of us can grow up and achieve full moral maturity unless we are willing to examine our own dark side and consider that maybe we are not as nice as we think we are. Maybe our desire to congratulate ourselves for our virtue causes us to overlook our own vices and selfishness.

The idea was comically captured in the following British skit.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

The post Are We (the U.S.) the Bad Guys? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Rick Sanchez: Fired and Threatened With Jail for Refusing to Spout Zelensky’s Talking Points appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump has been issuing executive orders left and right and targeting many federal agencies. However, there is one agency that Trump has not announced any cuts: the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA. As much as I am opposed to practically every agency of the federal government, getting rid of the DEA should be high on the list of anyone who treasures individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, and private property.

The post The One Agency that Trump Won’t Cut appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Barnes and Baris Episode 89: What Are the Odds? What is Wrong with the California Republican Party? Plus, the Need for Reforming the Judicial Branch is Becoming More Evident appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Pardon Me? Trump Blasts Biden’s ‘Auto-Signed’ Get Out Of Jail Free Cards appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

I watch this video frequently, this man predicted the future and still some people dismiss this at their peril

– Roy Ben-Tzvi

Read on Substack

The post Warning from the UAE appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Mike Sanders.

Live Science

The post Mice administer ‘first-aid’ to friends — even trying to bring the dead back to life appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Hi Lew,

Carl Sagan was once iconic, particularly among liberals . A brilliant American.

Add Sagan to the wise men whose warning fell upon deaf ears.

Huxley,Orwell,Welch,McLuhan,Serling,Asimov, Vonnegut… they tried.They were right and the liberals are no longer liberal. They’ve become what we were warned of.

See this.

The post Carl Sagan’s Final Warning on the Importance of Scientific Skepticism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Andy Thomas.

From David Patrick Harry’s podcast (Eastern Orthodox).

The post Fake Christianity: Paula White and Christian Zionism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

It was Agenda 21 before renamed Agenda 2030- Remapping the U.S., British Columbia and a portion of Mexico  into “ Mega-Region Smart City States”. This was drawn up in 2013.

See this.

The post Ready to have your mind blown? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Meaning the child did not have measles, but tested positive after receiving the live virus MMR vaccine.

See this.

The post Measles Death By Pneumonia By Measles Vaccine appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Jackie:

Lew,

Another key point seldom discussed is that if the CIA were to come clean with full disclosure, they would have to open up to various degrees about how they fed some of their own people and incidental associates into the death mill.  Not only Oswald, but David Sanchez Morales and George de Mohrenschildt and even by extension Ramblin Rose Cheramie as other obvious examples.  And today they probably do not want to make a living example of squealing on Ruth Paine either.  If today’s agents and accessory employees found out how expendable they are, and how any time the wind changes their status can evaporate to cannon fodder or less than nothing, such disclosures wouldn’t be good for morale or recruitment or retention.  Or at least that is the argument they can use to scare and tame any random president.  Something like the South African reconciliation efforts of thirty years ago might have a glimmer of a chance, but that would require the devil to develop some scant bits of morality.  From a world where there is no bottom.

The post CIA Recalcitrance About JFK Disclosure appeared first on LewRockwell.

Kemosaby wrote:

Are you aware of  http://www.maebrussell.com  ?  Listening to her on her weekly JFK radio show out of Carmel Ca. back in the 70s was the main catapult that brought me to the realization of the criminality of our government. It enabled me to reject all the government lies about Vietnam and all the lies since then, 9-11, Covid, you know. At first I thought she was crazy but as she went into detail after detail about JFK I realized the reality of our government was quite different from our mass programing. She ended up with numerous file cabinets documenting everything she said. On the site is the story of how she went to the Monterey airport to warn RFK’s mother that he was slated for assassination two weeks before it happened.  She was amazing, just wanted to make sure you are aware of her.

Thanks for all!

The post JFK and the Unspekable appeared first on LewRockwell.

Why should we care today about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963? That fateful day in Dallas is, after all, a long time ago: those of us, like me, who can remember the day are at least in their sixties. The short answer is that it reveals something essential for us to know about the American government and the Deep State that runs it.

Kennedy had become deeply suspicious of the CIA and other American intelligence agencies. They had given him bad advice about Cuba, which almost got us into a nuclear confrontation with Soviet Russia. Also, he planned to stop escalating the war in Vietnam, which made him profoundly abhorrent to the warmongers running the Pentagon.

Because of these, the Deep State decided to kill Kennedy. The best book on this subject is JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, whom I interviewed a number of years ago. Here is what Jim Douglass told me:

“Now, Jim, you were close to Thomas Merton, influenced by Thomas Merton, and part of this title comes from Merton. Would you explain DOUGLASS: Yes, Lew. Thomas Merton wrote a book called Raids on the Unspeakable, a series of essays. He talked about the unspeakable as a kind of power and a kind of reality that went almost beyond the power of speech. It was suggested for him by the nuclear arms race, by the Vietnam War, and by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Malcolm and Martin and RFK. It was a kind of evil where we don’t want to go. That might be one way of coming up with what he meant by the unspeakable.

ROCKWELL: Well, Jim Douglass, thank goodness you have gone where maybe others have feared to go. And all the people that I’ve talked to – and I’ve read, myself, a good amount of Kennedy revisionism, but I was extremely impressed by all you’ve done. And the people I’ve talked to who are the real experts tell me this is the best book and the most important book ever written on the Kennedy assassination. So not only do you go over why, clearly, this was a conspiracy, it just wasn’t a typical lone nut who appears from time to time in American history and is of great use to the power elite, but you show us why he was killed, why this is so important, and why we should all be concerned about it, not simply a historical event we can forget about, but why it continues to have impact on the nature of American society, of the wars that the government fights, what’s happening in terms of the police state here at home, and why it affects every person here today listening to this show.

DOUGLASS: Yes, I really appreciate your emphasizing the whys, because all I hoped to do was to tell the story of the why. I, of course, included the plot, but the only reason I did that was to fill in the picture. My point is not, and I did not write an analysis of the Kennedy assassination. It was to tell the story of JFK, and of all of us, for that matter. It was representing everyone in this country and, because of the nature of the conflict, in some sense, everybody in the world. We’re talking about weapons that could destroy the world. And that story, and of his turning – I use that word advisedly. It comes from the Hebrew Scriptures – his turning away from that kind of destructive power, towards peace, that’s the ‘why’ of his assassination.

ROCKWELL: You know, we hear, for example, about his speech where he said he was going to undo the CIA as an organization. Was that part of it, I mean, in terms of what the CIA did then, what it does today, what the Pentagon does, the Military-Industrial Complex?

DOUGLASS: He underwent a break with the CIA relatively early in his administration at the Bay of Pigs because he understood – he was not a stupid man. He was a very shrewd person. (Laughing) And he understood that he was being manipulated and set up at the Bay of Pigs so that he would have to call in the U.S. troops to win against Castro, and the CIA lied to him to set him up, they lied about the conditions of the uprisings that they told him were going to occur in Cuba and all this kind of thing. And the whole Bay of Pigs invasion had been organized during the Eisenhower administration. But when Kennedy realized afterwards the extent to which he had been lied and set up, he said, I want to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind. And he very deliberately did take steps to impair the CIA from doing that in the future. He fired the man in charge, Allen Dulles, who had been the cold warrior up to that point, and fired his main subordinates who had set him up in the Bay of Pigs. And then, of course, after his assassination, who does Lyndon Johnson, his successor, appoint for the so-called Warren Commission as the major influence within it, but Allen Dulles. He should have been considered, rightly, as the main suspect in the assassination rather than appointed to investigate it. That’s the fox investigating the murder in the hen house.

ROCKWELL: Can you look at the Kennedy assassination as a coup d’etat?

DOUGLASS: Yes. But it’s a very subtle coup d’etat in that the propaganda is so enormous and the transition is done so fluidly into an administration under Lyndon Johnson, that is reversing all of Kennedy’s main decisions. That happens with so little disruption. I mean, Kennedy’s main advisors don’t all surrender and say this is a coup d’etat or anything like that. Everybody sort of surrenders. This is Cold War thinking. This is the mission to the Powers That Be, if you want to put it in biblical terms. And so, although it is, in fact, a coup d’etat in terms of the power – and the way Kennedy was moving, he had become so isolated, and even his closest – well, most of his closest advisers were so subordinate to the Powers That Be that it was not seen as anything like that.”

Because of what the CIA did, it is vital that we get all of the documents from the CIA and FBI about the assassination. And I do mean all of them. President Trump promised to release all these files, but he hasn’t done it. Jacob Hornberger, a long-time libertarian researcher on the Kennedy association, tells the story: “It has now been two months since Donald Trump assumed the presidency. The question naturally arises: Where are those long-secret JFK Records that he repeatedly promised to release to the American people? Or to be more precise, why are those long-secret JFK records still secret? What’s up with the delay, President Trump?

After all, it takes about one minute to write and sign an executive order that states as follows: ‘I, President Donald Trump, hereby order the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the National Archives, the Secret Service, and all other federal entities to immediately disclose all records, files, documents, films, and other matters relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, including, but not limited to, the disclosure of all files and records relating to CIA official George Joannides, as well as the elimination of all redactions in JFK-related documents.’

It’s not as if Trump doesn’t know how to issue and sign an executive order. He’s issued more than 53 since he took office this time around. The first time he was president he issued 220 executive orders.

It’s worth pointing out that Trump did issue one executive order relating to those long-secret JFK records. On January 23, he ordered his Director of National Intelligence and his Attorney General to present Trump with a plan for the full and complete release of those long-secret JFK records.

A ‘plan’? Why a ‘plan’? Calling for a plan for disclosure and release is not exactly the same thing as ordering disclosure. What next? A committee to study the plan and make recommendations on modifying the plan? Why not just order disclosure? Why order a plan for disclosure?

As it turns out, that plan for releasing those long-secret JFK records was submitted to Trump on February 7, more than a month ago.

What did the plan say? We don’t know! The reason we don’t know is that Trump, for some unknown reason, has chosen to keep the plan secret from the American people.

What? A secret plan under the Trump administration for releasing those long-secret JFK records? Does that even make any sense? We now have secrecy piled onto secrecy under Trump! Trump hasn’t even explained why the plan has to be kept secret, but my hunch is that it has something to do with protecting ‘national security,’ the two most important (and meaningless) words in the American political lexicon.

What’s really going on here? My hunch is what I’ve been saying the whole time about those long-secret JFK records, which is that the CIA simply will not permit Trump to release those long-secret records. The CIA has succeeded in keeping those long-secret records secret for more than 60 years.

Let’s not forget that during Trump’s first term as president, he proudly announced that he was going to release those long-secret records. He repeatedly made that announcement up to the week of the statutory deadline. Then the CIA stepped in and had a conversation with Trump. After that conversation, Trump buckled and acceded to the CIA’s demand that those long-secret records continue to be kept secret.

My hunch is that this time around, the CIA has again informed Trump that it will not permit him to release those long-secret JFK records. That includes the records that were ordered to be released by the JFK Records Act back in 1992 and it also includes the CIA’s files relating to its officer George Joannides. My hunch is that Trump is too embarrassed to let people know that it is the national-security establishment (e.g., the CIA), not the president, that is ultimately in charge of running the federal government. But how long can Trump remain paralyzed over what to do before more people begin asking him about what he intends to do about those long-secret JFK assassination-related records?”

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

Let’s do everything we can to get all the CIA documents released, as Trump as promised. We have a right to know the truth.

The post Kennedy Assassination Mysteries appeared first on LewRockwell.

I suppose I should be writing this in the Journal of Linguistics or the International Journal of Lexicography, but I have a feeling those outlets are not as widely read as this one, so I’m making my case for reformed word usage here, and I trust your indulgence.

My concern is for the word “suck” and how it is being used, frequently in all forms of discourse, in a derogatory sense to means something bad, distasteful, or ugly—or something simply not to the user’s taste.  My concern, of course, is that the use of the word this way should be considered vulgar, pejorative, and offensive, since it derives in fairly recent history from the phrase “cocksucker” and its pejorative use as in “he sucks.”  It was an insult to homosexuals from the beginning, and I know nothing about it except its contemporary overuse that diminishes this denigration and belittlement.

The OED argues that the sense of “suck” as in oral sex is first used in 1928 in a lexicography book, but other sources say it can be found much earlier as in “suck below thy waste” in a 1631 play by Englishman James Shirley.  And it was in common use by the end of the end of the 19th century, where it was used repeatedly in a pornographic magazine in 1879 and 1880.

The use of the word in a nonsexual derogatorial sense in regular discourse is said to have started in the 1970s, as in a June 1971 issue of the International Times saying “Polaroid sucks.” I remember hearing it, and blushing, in that decade, though in speech, not in any writing I read then.  I thought the rise of the gay rights movement after the Stonewall riots in 1969 (down the street from where I was then living) would quickly put an end to that use, but it was never publicly addressed as far as I know and the word kept cropping up.  It even got to television, on a Saturday Night Live broadcast in 1977.

To give you some idea of its prevalence today, here are some samples at random from Reddit, the worldwide social media network that is a perfect reflection of the tastes of the time:  “Recent Pokemon Games suck” (2018), “Why do Steam sales suck?” (2021), “Adobe products suck” (2022), “The recent patches suck (2023).  There is no suggestion that any of the users means any connection with a sex act or anything special beyond the declaration that something is in some way bad.

Slate magazine argued in a 2006 article that the word was perfectly good to use these days and “suck-haters are living in the past.”  But—because I know where the word comes from and can’t unknow it—I still find the word offensive and think it should not be used in normal polite discourse. I am not a homosexual, so there is nothing personal in filing this complaint.  It’s simply an urge to make our language precise and useful as possible.

Thesaurus.com lists 35 different synonyms for “bad,” and it doesn’t include “suck.”  We ought to be able to agree to use one of them.

The post Excuse Me, But I Have a Touchy Subject to Bring Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

Later this month a conference promising to lead Catholics from “diabolical deception to [the] restoration of truth” will be held in Wisconsin. The headline speaker is Fr. Chad Ripperger, predictably leading Where Peter Is founder Mike Lewis to pen another unhinged rant against Fr. Ripperger, this time calling him “wildly heterodox, superstitious, and conspiratorial.” Last week we published an excellent article by Michael Hitchborn demolishing a previous Lewis article attacking the well-known priest.

Though it always feels right to disagree with Lewis, I do have serious reservations about this “Restore Truth Conference.” Other speakers at the conference include Hugh Owen, director of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, and Robert Sungenis, longtime Catholic apologist. The Kolbe Center advocates for a “traditional doctrine of creation”, by which it means it supports the “young earth” hypothesis (i.e., the earth was created only around 6,000 years ago), and Sungenis is a vocal proponent of geocentrism. (Owen and many people associated with the Kolbe Center also support geocentrism, although not as dogmatically as Sungenis does.) This conference, then, promises to push both young earth and geocentrism points of view as Catholic truth. This is as pseudo-scientific as many of the atheist attempts to use scientific findings to push a purely materialistic outlook. But more importantly, it opposes the actual traditional approach of the Church to scientific discoveries.

The conference’s promotional materials promise it will take aim at two evils: Darwinian evolution1 and “alien deception.” I agree that Catholics should have deep concerns about both. Darwinian evolution, specifically biological macroevolution in both its original and its later “neo-Darwinian” forms, has been used for the past 150 years to advance a fundamentally anti-Catholic worldview, one that rejects the role of God in our universe. And as it is popularly understood and taught, Darwinian evolution has little actual scientific evidence to support it.

Likewise, the modern UFO movement has deceived many. Recently on the Crisis Point podcast I spoke with Teresa Yanaros, who was actively involved in this movement before returning to her Catholic Faith. As a result of her firsthand experience, she believes there’s no question that most purported alien encounters are actually encounters with demonic forces.

If the Restore Truth Conference was simply warning against the dangers of Darwinian evolution and the UFO movement, I wouldn’t voice my reservations. But having Owen and Sungenis as speakers tells me that the solution being proposed—teaching that a young earth (Owen) and geocentrism (Sungenis) is “Catholic teaching,” as both Owen and Sungenis do—will also lead people astray, just in a different direction. A faithful Catholic can reject Darwinian evolution while also realizing that both a young earth and geocentrism are not scientifically viable alternatives.

In this article I can’t detail all the arguments that Owen and Sungenis present to expound their views (see Owen’s Kolbe Center and Sungenis’s Catholic Apologetics International for details), but both follow the same basic outline, which contains two main points: first that their view is the only one consistent with a literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and second, that their view matches the “consensus of the Church Fathers.” Starting from these two points, they then try to find purportedly “scientific” evidence to support their views. To disagree with them means, apparently, going against both Scripture and the Fathers, which no good Catholic wants to do.

This line of argumentation is particularly attractive to traditional Catholics, because we sincerely lament the jettisoning of both Scripture and the Fathers in recent decades in favor of modern fads. So anyone who argues that the young earth and geocentric views fell at the hands of the same movement that swept away so many traditional teachings finds a receptive audience. There’s just this little problem, however: Owen’s and Sungenis’s arguments aren’t traditional at all. The Church decided centuries ago that their way of approaching Scripture and the Fathers is a faulty methodology.

A recent book reveals this clearly: The Case of Galileo and the Church by Walter Cardinal Brandmüller. In this book Brandmüller details the history of the geocentrism/heliocentrism debate in the Church from its origins in the 16th century to its resolution in the early 19th century. Cardinal Brandmüller is perhaps most known now as one of the four “dubia Cardinals,” who sent questions to Pope Francis about Amoris laetitia that went unanswered. Needless to say, his orthodoxy and love for the Church are unassailable. Beyond the fascinating historical account of the famous Galileo affair, Brandmüller’s book provides a further service: it details how Catholics should approach new scientific discoveries. And spoiler: it’s not how Owen and Sungenis approach them.

As is well known, before the 16th century, the dominant cosmological theory was that of Ptolemy, the 2nd century mathematician who argued that the earth was motionless and that the sun revolved around it. Numerous Scriptural verses reference a motionless earth, and so early Christians, like everyone else, accepted Ptolemy’s geocentric system. It was, in other words, in keeping with a literal interpretation of the Bible and the “consensus of the Fathers.”

In the 16th century, however, the Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus proposed an alternative theory: the earth circles the sun, i.e., heliocentrism. While modern mythology suggests that the immediate reaction of the Church was to reject this theory and burn anyone at the stake who might advance it, the reality is that many Catholics, including members of the hierarchy, were open to it.2 What concerned Church officials was the encroachment of this scientific idea into theological waters, in which an (at that time) unproven scientific theory would be used to contradict a long-held interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

In the early 17th century, Catholic scientist Galileo Galilei ran into trouble with the Church when he promoted the Copernican system, and, most importantly, argued that previous interpretations of Scripture were wrong. In response, the Congregation of the Index in 1616 declared that the new teaching about the movement of the earth was “altogether opposed to Sacred Scripture” and demanded that Galileo stop publicly advocating for it as a proven theory. In 1633 Galileo went on trial before the Holy Office, which condemned him and declared that the theory that “the sun is the center of the earth’s orbit and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the universe [is]…false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scriptures.” Galileo’s book, along with some other books advocating for heliocentrism, were put on the Index.

While this famous trial provided fodder for anti-Catholics for centuries, what is less well-known is its eventual resolution in 1820, a resolution that Cardinal Brandmüller details and which helps modern Catholics approach scientific discoveries with a proper, and dare I say traditional, Catholic outlook.

It’s important to note that the Church’s position in Galileo’s time was sound and was advocated by St. Robert Bellarmine: without real proof, we will stick with what Scripture appears to say and what all the Church Fathers believed. But also note that Bellarmine admitted that if science should prove it otherwise, the Church will need to rethink the common Scriptural interpretation. This is what happened: between Galileo’s trial and the early 19th century, scientific consensus coalesced around a heliocentric cosmology. Even most Catholic scholars accepted it, because, unlike in Galileo’s time, there were now sufficient proofs for it.

So, in 1820, the stage was set for the Church to officially review the Galileo affair and reconsider the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. The spark was a book to be published by Catholic scientist Giuseppe Settele that accepted the Copernican cosmology as proven. Since the middle of the 18th century the ban on such books had been relaxed, but no one had asked for an official imprimatur from Rome for such a book. Settele did. Even though most Catholics at this time accepted heliocentrism, the man in charge of giving out the imprimatur, Fr. Filippo Anfossi, did not. Anfossi still believed that heliocentrism went against a literal interpretation of Scripture and opposed the consensus of the fathers. He didn’t care about any scientific proofs; all that mattered to him was whether he thought it was consistent with Scripture and the Fathers. He refused the imprimatur. Settele challenged this decision with the Holy Office, thus initiating an ecclesial battle that included many high-ranking officials including Pope Pius VII and would eventually resolve the issue definitively.

The case became a media sensation, for even non-Catholics understood its importance in determining how Catholics would approach new scientific discoveries going forward. Would the Church refuse to accept what was now scientifically proven, or would she be willing to recognize that the situation was now different than it was in Galileo’s time? Most bishops and priests involved in the case were on the side of Settele and felt that Anfossi’s refusal was embarrassing for the Church. Since heliocentrism was accepted by almost everyone at this time—and most importantly, had been proven definitively since Galileo’s time—they wanted a way for the Church to leave the Galileo affair behind. After a good deal of back-and-forth (Anfossi was a formidable defender of his beliefs), the Church granted the imprimatur and soon afterwards took all pro-heliocentric books off the Index. Everybody understood this as the Church’s formal acceptance of the heliocentric view as consistent with Sacred Scripture, in spite of her long history of interpreting it geocentrically.

Read the Whole Article

The post A Truly Traditionalist Approach to Science Isn’t What You’ve Been Told appeared first on LewRockwell.