Lew Rockwell Institute

Gail Appel wrote:

Never doubted it.

The post How to amp up the numbers of “Russian” kills appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Mike Sanders.

Activist Post

The post Parents: Measles Didn’t Kill Girl In Texas appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

The EO leaves electronic voting machines in the election process. It refers to improving the security of these machines which are called “systems.” Mike Lindell is still hopeful they will be eliminated from the election process in the future. 

See here.

The post Trump’s Election Integrity EO appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The bureaucrats in the US Agencies are sadists who enjoy lording it over people. They hate strong, independent Americans like the Maude family because the bureaucrats are weak.

See here.

The post USFS Goes After Cattle Rancher in South Dakota appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Andy Thomas.

The post Auron MacIntyre – How To Destroy High-Trust Societies appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

Somali “refugee” State Legislators are so grateful for U.S. taxpayer dollar largesse.

Get them all the hell out of here. They HATE us!

See here.

The post Medicare Fraud Funding Munition and Arms to Somalia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Great interview last night with Musk and members of the DOGE team. A good mix of concrete examples (40% of calls to Social Security customer service are crooks trying to reset electronic deposits from the intended recipient to the crook) with a steady return to the overall goal of cutting waste and fraud.

The $1B target of first year cost savings is too low IMHO. DOGE has yet to start with Defense. Social Security is just getting started. We will see.

Everything Musk and his team has found reflects my experience in working with government IT systems. My work for one of “Beltway Bandits” consulting firms to respond to an RFP for fixing Air Force financial systems matches what Musk and his team describe. Hundreds of legacy financial systems (most of which can barely communicate with each other) and no ability to conduct a financial audit, let alone pass one.  Many IT people in the Air Force were very aware of flaws and limitations on the systems, but just had to live with it. That is no longer the case.

Musk is correct to give credit to Trump for pushing this effort to combat waste and fraud. To me, his best comment was that when fraud is exposed, the fraudsters are the loudest ones to shout in outrage and complain.

Fox News segment on Baier interview Musk and DOGE team.

The post Great DOGE Review appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

Common Dreams

The post Jewish Groups Denounce Latest ‘Cynical’ GOP Hearing Equating Criticism of Israel With Antisemitism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

The post From JFK to Donald Trump: How the USA Became Wedded to Zionist Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  Brian Dunaway.

Katv.com

The post Ivermectin becomes accessible without prescription in Arkansas under new state legislation appeared first on LewRockwell.

We are in a culture war. Tax payer financed institutions are being used to amplify the culture war. I completely agree with Trump’s approach. If you want the federal dollars, then you will drop the DEI nonsense.

It was in the news yesterday that a DEI inspired private foundation just closed shop. The DEI types running it had stolen donor money, bankrupting the foundation. There is no reason to allow such behavior in taxpayer financed institutions. And no reason to allow your own money to support such behavior.

Link to New York Post article on Trump cutting federal funds to Smithsonian over DEI.

The post Right Approach to DEI appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I was younger, I was taught that the most important part of our worship in song wasn’t the notes, but rather the words. When we sing to God, we are also speaking to and teaching one another (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16). We should be able to “sing with the mind” (1 Cor. 14.15).

Every Sunday, our worship is filled with wonderful, beautiful, theologically rich hymns which remind us of biblical truths.  But growing up in the church, there was one song that we didn’t sing. In fact, we avoided it. We never sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It’s not that we didn’t know the song (if you know the tune of “Booster”, you know the song). But rather, we avoided it because of its anti-Christian message.

Of course, there are some who remain ignorant of the song’s history and its anti-Christian theology. There have been rare occasions (usually near a patriotic holiday) where I’ve heard this song led in worship. But those occasions are rare. And even when the song is led, there are usually at least a handful of Christians throughout the auditorium standing there in awkward silence.

It is important to pay attention to the message we teach with our songs. That’s why many Christians don’t sing the “Battle Hymn.”

The Origins of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

(Source: Chapter 8 of Julia Ward Howe’s biography. You can read it here.)

The Battle Hymn of the Republic was written in 1861 by a northern political activist, Julia Ward Howe. As an abolitionist, she was convinced that the Union cause was moral and righteous, and thus felt justified in supporting the destruction of her southern neighbors.

Returning from a visit to Washington in 1861, her carriage was delayed by marching regiments of Union soldiers. To pass the time, she and her companions sang several war songs which were popular at the time. Among them was a song called “John Brown’s Body”.

John Brown’s body lied a-moulding in the grave,
His soul is marching on!

The tune was catchy, and it wasn’t long until the marching soldiers joined in singing with her. One of her friends then suggested to her, “Mrs. Howe, why do you not write some good words for that stirring tune?”

Early the following morning the following lyrics came to her:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

After the song was published in 1862, it quickly found its way into military camps, and was frequently sung in exhortation before battles, and was sung joyously upon the news of military victories. In describing why she had written the song, Howe said:

Something seems to say to me, “You would be glad to serve, but you cannot help anyone; you have nothing to give, and there is nothing for you to do.” Yet, because of my sincere desire, a word was given to me to say, which did strengthen the hearts of those who fought in the field and of those who languished in the prison.

Despite originating during the war, it is important to realize that opposition to singing this “hymn” has nothing to do with who we think was right or wrong during the war. It has everything to do with the anti-Christian message of the song.

The Theology of the “Battle Hymn”

Like many who lived in the 19th century, Howe was very familiar with the Bible. Therefore the song is filled with language and imagery from Scripture. The song certainly has a spiritual message, but the message is not a Christian message.

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is religious war propaganda. It twists and turns the biblical imagery for the purpose of “strengthening the hearts” of union soldiers as they fought and killed their southern neighbors. Far from being a Christian hymn, the “Battle Hymn” is anti-Christian to the core.

Revelation 19 and the Coming of the Lord

The phrase “coming of the Lord” is understood to refer to the 2nd coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4.15; Jas. 5.7-8). Despite the fact that the phrase “coming of the Lord” never appears in the book of Revelation, most of the songs images are drawn from Revelation 19.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which not one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” – Rev. 19.11-16

In this passage, violence, war, and judgment seem to accompany the appearance of Christ, who arrives on a white horse (a common image used for Roman military conquerors). The passage describes Jesus in a blood-drenched robe treading out the “wine press of the fierce wrath of God.” Howe poetically uses the image to describe the Lord “Trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.”

The problem is that Howe wrote this lyric, not for the purpose of trusting in the Lord’s judgment, but rather for the purpose of giving Union troops license to kill their southern enemies. Americans have continually heard this popular patriotic song exactly as it was intended by Howe to be understood – as a validation for Americans to destroy enemies whom they judge as being immoral.

As Howe wrote the following verses with Union soldiers in mind, seeking to “offer service to their cause”, even the triumph of the gospel and the birth of Christ and twisted into justification for war.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal”
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on!

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never sound retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment seat,
O be swift, my soul, to answer Him, Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on!

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on!

John’s Use of Military Imagery

The Bible is no stranger to using military imagery (1 Tim. 1.18; 2 Tim. 2.3), and Revelation 19 is no exception. But Julia Ward Howe and John of Patmos use military imagery to opposite ends.

Howe used the military imagery of Revelation 19 to “strengthen the hearts” of union soldiers as they marched into battle against their enemies. John used Roman military imagery to show that Christ (as opposed to Roman military leaders) will ultimately win the day. If we are looking for a heroic conqueror on a white horse to ride in and save the day, John doesn’t want for us to look for a Roman military leader, a Union General, or any other military hero. He wants us to look to Christ.

By the time Revelation was written, the “sword” was already commonly understood by Christians as a figure of the word of God (Eph. 6.17; Heb. 4.12). Earlier in the book of Revelation, Christ is described as having a sword coming out of his mouth, strongly reinforcing this image (Rev. 1.16). The fact that Revelation 19 describes the sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth indicates that the “weapon” John envisions is not the “burnished rows of steel”, but rather the God’s word.

John then describes how the sword is used to strike down the nations and rule them with a rod of iron. This is quite the opposite of Howe’s usage of Revelation’s imagery to “strengthen the hearts of those who fought” for her nation. In Revelation 19, the nations are not the victors. Rather the nations, having been deceived by Babylon (Rev. 18.23), are the ones who are defeated by the triumphant word of God.

The Victory of the Lamb

The book of Revelation not only assures us of Christ’s victory, it also gives us understanding as to how God destroys evil.

Amid all the violence and evil in the world, Revelation 5 gives good news. The victorious Lion of Judah is here to fight for us! But the surprising thing is that when John turns around to see the Lion, He looks like a slain Lamb.

“And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain.” (Rev. 5.6)

Significantly, a similar surprise is seen in the Revelation 19 battle scene. A close reading will show that the blood on Christ’s garment was not that of his enemies. Christ is described as being covered in blood (v. 13) before the enemies are struck down (v. 15). The blood is not that of His enemies. It is His own blood.

At the conclusion of Jesus’s conquest, He bears a new title: “King of kings and Lord of lords” (v. 16). Jesus replaces every other king, lord, or other political power which may demand our allegiance. Immediately after the conquest, the kings, the military commanders, the mighty men, the horses are their riders are all defeated (vs. 17-18).

Julia Ward Howe wrote the Battle Hymn to strengthen others in their allegiance to the Union. Revelation 19 challenges us to give our allegiance to Him who is Faithful and True as opposed to giving our allegiance to the nations of this earth with their kings and military conquerors. The “Battle Hymn” uses the same images, but to a completely opposite end.

Choose Your Side

Though the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is filled with scriptural images, it has nothing to do with following Jesus. This is why many Christians don’t sing the “Battle Hymn”. We don’t sing the “Battle Hymn”, because we have decided to give our allegiance and worship to Christ alone, rejecting allegiance to any other defeated king, lord, or political entity.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Why We Don’t Sing the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you let the popularity of an idea – no matter how silly – dictate your stance, then you are not a very good elected official.

If you completely ignore and shoo-away and disparage overwhelming public sentiment on an issue, then you are not a very good elected official.

And, in the latter case, doing so used to mean your job at risk. But that, in the large and depressing part, is no longer the case.

And that is a result of voting districts, at every level.

You can be consistently on the “20% side” of an issue, as it were, and defy the remaining 80% of public sentiment and not be too worried about losing your seat because the district you represent has been drawn in such a way as to make it nearly mathematically impossible.

You can be in favor of paying for trans surgeries, in favor of illegal alien criminals staying in the country, in favor of massive slush fund spending that only goes to your political cronies, you can be in favor of government censorship, and on and on and not worry even though the vast majority of the public – probably even your district – are opposed to them.

In other words, rotten districts are licenses to be crazy because you only have to get through the primary where the 20% miraculously becomes 50% because they are far more obsessed with their issues…they vote…or are voted for…or paid to vote…

Let’s start with Congress.

Out of the 435 seats, about 190 are Democrat automatics. If a combination of Albert Einstein, Cary Grant, and the Buddha challenged the incumbent in any of these seats he would lose, even if he ran as an independent (Run as a Republican? Don’t even bother.)

The same can be said for the 190 ribrock reliable Republican seats.

That leaves 55 seats, or only 13% of the entire House of Representatives, in play in any given year. (Note – if only legal residents and citizens were counted when creating congressional districts, it is estimated that at least 10 Democrat seats would slip at least into the “contestable” pile.)

And if you are in one of those safe seats you can do anything you want, no matter what the public thinks.

On the Senate side, it’s slightly different as they are statewide elections that far more closely represent the actual will of the voters. At this moment in time, about 15 states can reliably predicted to return two Democrats, about 18 to return two Republicans.

That leaves about 34 seats or so theoretically in actual play, a far larger percentage than in the House.

Of course, senate seats do turn on other issues – while money and personality are important in all elections, they are far more important in statewide (and national) elections than any at the district level.

Let’s turn now to a specific type of election – local school boards.

Typically, the winning candidate has the support of the local teachers union. That means money and people to knock on doors and all of the rest of the permanent organization the union has is at your disposal.

So, then you win? Whom do you owe?

The union. Imagine if you could pick your own boss and then imagine you can get your boss fired and then imagine what happens when you ask for a raise or demand a new policy or procedure?

You get what you want, and what teachers’ union want, beyond money, is astonishing:

From a previous story on a recent California Teachers Association convention:

The “So you Want to be an Anti-Racist Union?” program page leads the curious to at least one hint – stop embracing “white supremacy culture,” aspects of which include perfectionism (there goes math), objectivity (there goes history), individualism (there goes art), worship of the written word (there goes English) and urgency (actually this would have been handy if I forgot to do my homework) –see here for more detail.

Hence most school boards becoming covens of 20 percenters and, just to emphasize the issue, California is not an outlier in this respect.

Speaking of California, we come to its legislature.

There are 80 state Assembly seats and 40 state Senate seats. The Democrats have 60 Assemblymembers and 30 senators – literally 75% of the legislature.

What that means is that they can do anything they want – they could even override a Gov. Gavin Newsom, should the need ever arise (it hasn’t and won’t.) They have a super-majority.

In 2022, the state voted across the board for Democrats for each statewide office (governor, attorney general, etc.)

The average percentage of votes they each got was 57.7%, a bit different from the 75% (actually in 2022 it was 77%) in the legislative races.

In November’s presidential vote, Kamala Harris got 58.4% of the vote. Nice, one supposes, but far less than either Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton got.

But the more fascinating results were in the state proposition votes:

State voters took a hammer to the most progressive propositions. Allow cities more leeway to impose rent control? No. Allow cities and counties to have to get only 55% of the vote to approve new bonds? Hell no. Making it illegal (ish) for prisoners to work? Very no. Raising the minimum wage? You’re kidding, right?

And then of course there was Prop 36 that makes crime illegal again in California. 70% approval, a crushing defeat for the woke justice mob.

Each of these measures had the very strong backing of the governor, the legislature, public unions, and the Democratic machine yet they failed. Why?

Because at the statewide level, 75% of Californians are not lunatic leftist progressive determined to end policing, move abortion on demand to we demand you get an abortion, have the state take over local zoning, and give aggressively incompetent people like LA’s Mayor Karen Bass a standing ovation.

Yup, the Dems in the legislature really did that yesterday when she was in Sacramento asking for $2 billion to bail out the city.

Combine the above statistics with voter registration – 50% Dem, 25% Rep, 25% NPP (no party preference, like an independent elsewhere) – and the legislature number become even more of an outlier.

And typically the NPPs vote leans Republican by about two-to-one.

In other words, it is only how the districts are drawn and composed that’s keeping the legislature so far out of touch.

They’re like trust fund nepo-babies – they never have to face consequences so they can do whatever they want.

And in situations like that, even the stupidest most radical most unpopular policy or proposal becomes very possible, especially because it is rare that a Democrat will ever say or vote against anything another Democrat offers.

How did the districts get this way? First, the “independent citizen’s re-districting commission” has been anything but.

Second, districts are divided up by counting all the people, not just the legal residents.

An example from 2020:

An average district has about 275,000 legal voters. Districts that have more than 300,000 legal voters (about 10 percent higher than the average) returned seven Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one independent, results roughly in line with statewide party registration figures.

But districts that have fewer than 250,000 legal voters showed a very significant tilt, electing three Republicans and 17 Democrats, more than twice the difference that could be expected vis a vis statewide party affiliations.

It should be noted that the turnout and citizen rates appear to be intertwined. The competitive districts with the highest percentages of citizens had the highest turnouts, with the top eight turnout districts showing an average citizenship rate of 87 percent, while the lowest 10 districts by turnout carried a citizenship rate of 62 percent (Republicans and Democrats split the top eight districts four to four while the lowest went Democrat by nine to one).

Add those facts to boggling incompetence of the state Republican party, the leftist manipulation of the districting process (even ProPublica noticed how bad it is ) and the Dems cannot possibly lose.

And add that the political starting point for most members is somewhere to the left of Trotsky and the end result is foretold.

In other words, Democratic extremism (and in some case Republican silliness) is baked into the system which is why when people ask why so many take such extreme and extremely unpopular positions the answer becomes obvious.

If the districts were more representative of the population generally, the Dems would lose about 10 Assembly seats and 5 Senate seats and there goes the super-majority and the tempering process begins.

And that would be a start, at least.

This originally appeared on The Point.

The post Forever 20 appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Why does the assassination of JFK still matter today?

Doug Casey: Assassination has always been part and parcel of the political landscape since at least the days of the Egyptian pharaohs. Sometimes, assassinations can change the course of world history.

Two outstanding examples are that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, which precipitated Rome’s change from a republic to an empire, and that of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, which ignited World War I.

Assassins come in two main flavors. Sometimes, it’s simply an individual or group with an ideological difference of opinion, a grudge, or a wish to make a point. That was the case with Ferdinand. Sometimes however, the assassins want to grab the reins of power. That was the case with Caesar.

Which was it with JFK? Was Lee Harvey Oswald a solo actor? Or was he part of a greater conspiracy? I’m partial to the latter view. Even assuming that Oswald was even the assassin—which is unlikely.

International Man: In his first week in office, President Trump issued an Executive Order to release the remaining JFK files. After a lengthy delay, the government finally made the files public nearly two months later.

Tucker Carlson recently remarked: “There is active pressure on elected officials to stop this disclosure… now, in 2025. Who is powerful enough to intimidate people into delaying this release? What force is influencing the new administration to prevent the disclosure?”

What are your thoughts?

Doug Casey: The Deep State in general, and the CIA in particular, are powerful institutions with lots of money, force, and cultures that tend to close ranks when under attack. Their members are intensely loyal not just because, on the upside, the institution treats them well and fills their rice bowls, but can give them immense wealth and privileges. Betraying them is dangerous.

That’s why members of the praetorian agencies like the CIA and NSA are typically much more loyal to their employer and coworkers than the government or even the country itself. They’ll defend the institution that they’ve built their lives around.

There are dozens of armed entities within the US government. The most intimidating include the 17 comprising the so-called Intelligence Community, as it’s officially known. They resemble the Praetorian guards of the Roman Empire. It’s perversely amusing doublespeak that they’re referred to as a “community,” which sounds friendly and benign. Tulsi Gabbard is unlikely to have any success reining them in. It’s more likely that she’ll either be evicted or co-opted by them.

They have unit cohesion. They have armed forces. They have cultures of intense secrecy and large “black budgets.” They’re used to circulating in the halls of power, which puts them in a position to understand and, therefore—quite naturally—disrespect the people who are the country’s nominal rulers.

The front-facing politicos are dangerous enough. But the powers behind the throne are the real danger. Especially the CIA, because of its history and traditions and the fact that the things it does are largely kept secret by law. “National security,” you know…

There’s no question that a certain type of individual is drawn to an organization that specializes in black budgets, black activities, and doing things that nobody can know about. As they say, “I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.”

Anybody who threatens a serious investigation—forget about abolition—of an organization like that is putting their life at serious risk.

Who’s powerful enough to intimidate people into delaying the release of the Kennedy documents for six decades? Anyway, I suspect the most important files have been burned.

The JFK assassination, as far as I’m concerned, was 100% a government operation.

International Man: Who do you believe was truly behind JFK’s assassination, and what were their motives?

Doug Casey: JFK said that he wanted to break the CIA into 1,000 different pieces. I think he found that almost impossible to do. And it would be harder, much harder, to do today than it was back then.

The CIA has its own large and extravagant campus at Langley, Virginia, where these people are actually in a world of their own. Their 25,000 employees are much better at self-promotion than gathering intelligence, having famously failed to predict the rise of Castro in Cuba, the triumph of the Mullahs in Iran, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. But they excel in getting writers and movie producers to apotheosize them.

In 1964, it could only have been the CIA. The NSA was newly hatched and just figuring out how to gather electronic information. It didn’t have the kind of tentacles it does today when it knows absolutely everything about everybody. Blackmail is much more effective than wet work.

I don’t think it would have been the FBI. Although the FBI was very powerful, it was strictly under the control of J Edgar Hoover. It wouldn’t have made sense for Hoover to risk everything with an assassination, considering the blackmail power that he had.

But who knows? You’ll recall the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas at a public concert when 60 people were killed and over 400 wounded. The “investigation” results impressed me as totally phony, and the completely nonsensical story they fabricated was immediately swept under the rug. They should at least have called in the actors who played in the popular show, CSI Las Vegas.

The powers that be don’t seriously investigate crimes which might have political fallout. We still don’t know the full backstory on the two Trump assassination attempts just before the election. Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.

Police and, especially, Federal intelligence agencies are in an ideal position to hide or quash their own crimes. Don’t expect the truth to come out, even with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino running the FBI. They’ve got to realize that they’re putting their lives on the line if they turn over too many rocks.

International Man: If a group of people can orchestrate the assassination of a sitting president in broad daylight and get away with it, what else might they be capable of, and what does this reveal about the true power structure?

Doug Casey: It used to be fairly easy to assassinate a president. The Lincoln (1865), Garfield (1881), and McKinley (1901) attempts succeeded. Various others (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, FDR in 1933, Truman in 1950, Reagan in 1981, and Trump in 2024) could easily have succeeded.

But it’s gotten much harder over time. Whenever the president goes out in public, an entire area is locked down. His limousine is a thinly disguised tank, and Air Force One has every countermeasure known to man. The President and close associates are guarded more closely than a Roman emperor was. This is a sign of sickness in the State. Because most of the assassinations of emperors were perpetrated by Praetorians or other insiders. Trump should look within, not outside.

I’m speaking to you right now from Uruguay. Uruguayan presidents wander around in public, ride their motorcycles, and live in normal houses. They don’t have battalions of bodyguards.

There’s little danger of their being assassinated because not only is the country economically, ethnically, and politically stable, but the president doesn’t have enough power—symbolic or real—to make him worth shooting.

The way to look at an assassination, as I intimated a few moments ago, is to consider whether it is being done by outsiders or insiders.

An outsider generally just wants to create chaos; they don’t really care what happens afterward. Insiders, however, are interested in capturing the State and replacing the warm body with somebody in their own group.

With Kennedy, it was definitely a question of insiders trying to capture the State. I’d put my finger on his VP, Lyndon Johnson, and the CIA. Many volumes have been written about this, and we can’t recount them here. But that’s my conclusion.

International Man: The term “conspiracy theorist” was originally coined to discredit those who questioned the official narrative of the JFK assassination—that a “magic bullet” was responsible for the president’s death.

Today, “conspiracy theorist” and similar labels are still used to ridicule those who engage in independent and critical thinking.

What are your thoughts on this tactic, and what can be done to counter it?

Doug Casey: The CIA coined the phrase. It was clever to create that meme. They’re specialists in psychological warfare.

When you’re trying to upset or gain control of the apparatus of the State, discrediting the people currently in power is almost as good, or maybe better, than killing them. Bodies, or empty suits, can be easily replaced. Ideas linger.

Meme warfare, psychological warfare, is increasingly important in today’s world of mass media. In the past, we had thousands of newspapers with diverse opinions. There were groups of newspapers run by people like Pulitzer and Hearst, but today’s media is ubiquitous with radio, TV, movies, and print. The Internet, with its thousands of bloggers and podcasters, provides some countercurrents, of course. But news isn’t official unless it’s in the New York Times or on a major TV network.

Today, the media and the State have merged together as a practical matter. The people in power (the Deep State, if you will) know it’s critical that the public are all on the same page when it comes to major issues. The public can argue about whether chocolate or vanilla, or red or blue, is better. That makes them feel relevant. But big philosophical issues are off the table.

They dare not, for instance, question whether the Intelligence Community has their interests at heart. Or whether a Deep State exists. If they do, the plebs may start questioning all aspects of Authority and stop obeying instructions. If their psychology is changed, things can fall apart.

Physical force doesn’t keep an elephant tied to a tiny rope; it’s his psychology.

It’s important that the public think they know what’s happening and believe that what “we,” or the government, is doing is right. In other words, changing someone’s psychology and beliefs can be as effective as killing them physically. Killing someone’s credibility is critical to power mongers.

Physical bodies are basically replaceable like puppets, but killing the ideas they represent is more important. Assassinations are important, but there are more important things.

Information war is a major front of World War 3. It’s critical that all the details—no exceptions—of not only the JFK assassination but every other government mystery should be an open book.

Who are these people that think they have the right to decide what you do or don’t know?

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post JFK Assassination: Why It Matters Today appeared first on LewRockwell.

Europe’s leadership has gone stark raving mad. We all watch in awe as the elusive Fourth Reich emerges from an otherwise peaceful confederation of states. Interestingly, few realize that the European Commission is advertising and spreading propaganda on social media to sell the most significant arms race in history.

War Bonds on LinkedIn

This morning, I was scanning the LinkedIn business network when I came across this post from the European Parliament (915,131 followers) selling the spanking new resolution to “act urgently” to protect the continent against the “most profound military threat to its territorial integrity since the end of the Cold War.” A direct quote from the post aimed at business people, lenders, and investors reads:

“The resolution comes ahead of the publication of plans setting out the future of European defence next week that should include, according to MEPs, ‘truly ground-breaking efforts’ and actions ‘close to those of wartime’ from EU countries.” 

Unfortunately for Führer Ursula von der Leyen (See Sergey Lavrov interview), comments on the post rage at more expenditures on invisible threats and the need to address the EU’s bigger problems. It seems that IT specialists from the Czech Republic, energy construction consultants in Spain, blockchain investors from Brussels, aerospace tech consultants in Italy, CEOs of capital research societies, and a laundry list of studious LI users chimed in, chastizing the inept at the EU Parliament. In short, the reception from business people to trillions more on war is just not there. Still, you can expect these imbecils in Brussels to start selling war bonds on LinkedIn soon.

“X” Marks the Spot

Turning to Elon Musk’s “X” platform, we find the same propaganda and sales pitch to almost a million followers. Comments there mirror those from LinkedIn, except “X” users are less diplomatic. One comment reads, “You, the EU parliament, are currently the biggest threat in Europe. Warmongers!” Another “X” users posted a mashup showing Ursula von der Leyen dressed in her Fuhrer uniform giving the Nazi salute.

If you care to share it, https://x.com/IzzyTaka/status/1900259596968632584

Ban the EU from Facebook*

Moving to Facebook*, the organization promoting the creation of goose-stepping EU warriors received similar remarks. The responses range from laughing emoticons to comments praying for peace and thoughtful leadership, FB users irate because the resolution is not the will of the people, and EU citizens aware that Russia has been made a convenient enemy for financial gain. You can read the comments, trace the profiles, and understand that only vested interests and the completely brainwashed give the new Nazi Reich the thumbs up.

With peace in full view, and with hundreds of thousands of lives about to be spared, the warmongers in the EU Parliament can think of nothing but borrowing more to invest in profit machines like the military-industrial monster that’s sapped humanity unto death already. One FB user equated Brussels with the tower of Babel, which I found exceedingly fitting. The gods of Brussels rising to usurp heaven and Earth with their lofty, liberal, immoral values. It’s a joke, of course. One Italian man said it best in his comment addressed to the European Parliament: “I am ashamed of you.”

So much for democracy, the will of the people, and the Eden the European Union promised a billion people. If these psychopaths keep it up, the penguins in Antarctica will be wealthier than the middle class on the European continent. If the people keep expressing themselves on social media in this way, expect the EU bosses to ban all social media and speaking in the streets.

*- banned in Russia 

This originally appeared on New Eastern Outlook.

The post Silence! We Will Build Our EU Wehrmacht, Like It or Not appeared first on LewRockwell.

Every state has its crime rate. In the United States, statistics indicate that more than 15 million crimes are committed every year, including property and other serious crimes.

However, even if a state reports lower crime rates, it doesn’t mean that it is free of danger entirely. These states may still have some areas where violence occurs frequently, or they may report a smaller number of violent crimes, but the victims are often locals, so outsiders don’t hear much about them. Here we will take you through the five most dangerous states in America by crime rate with their high chances of becoming victims of criminal activities or assault throughout the country. Read on for more information.

Tennessee

One of the most dangerous states in America, Tennessee is filled with violence and has a high crime rate. Because of the presence of gangs in Tennessee cities like Knoxville, Memphis, and parts of Nashville, many locals keep away from these places unless they have to be there. The safest city in this state is Murfreesboro; it has fewer crimes, much better infrastructure, and much more safety. However, it is still better to avoid this state unless you have to go there.

Criminal activities in Tennessee include assault, murder, and rape, which are the most common violent crimes committed in this part of North America. Assaults can happen just about anywhere in Knoxville or Memphis when you least expect them to happen. Therefore, you should be extra careful while visiting these cities.

Crime Statistics in Tennessee

• Rapes in Tennessee are about 200 every year.
• Murder is not very common in this state, but assaults happen daily. The chances of becoming a victim of assault are almost 100%.
• Theft crimes are more than 4,500 per year.
• Tennessee has one of the highest crime rates in America, with 37,000 violent crimes committed there in 2019.

Nevada

Another dangerous state in America, Nevada, is known for its gambling and entertainment industry; however, the local population doesn’t tell you about this place because it has a high rate of crimes than any other part of the country. Being home to some of the largest casinos in North America, Las Vegas has the highest crime rate of every city in this state.

One of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.A., Las Vegas is home to organized criminals and other con artists who make their living by cheating innocent visitors; therefore, one should be extra careful while visiting this area.

Assaults and robberies are the most common crimes committed in this state; it is advised that one should avoid visiting or driving through these cities unless they have to be there.

Texas

Once known as a safe place for travelers across America, Texas has now turned into a home to many criminal gangs who operate throughout the country. One of the most dangerous states in America, Texas has a high crime rate in Austin and Houston, and all over the state.

With the presence of criminal gangs like crips and MS-13 operating all across Texas cities, including Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, visitors are warned to watch out for their belongings while visiting these places; also, it is safer to avoid visiting these cities unless you have to be there.

Crime Statistics in Texas

Many crimes in Texas go unreported as the cops or local police stations fail to record them. Here are some of the statistics:

• Assaults and robberies happen every day, but the police record only about 20% of these crimes and, therefore, never reach national crime stats.
• Murder is not very common in this state, but it happens every year; around 50-100 murders occur each year, leading to an increase in the crime rate.
• Crime rates in Texas, with most violent crimes happening rapidly throughout this state, the chances of becoming a victim of theft, robbery, or any other violent crime is very high!

Missouri 

According to- www.safehome.org: While violent crimes like murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery are much less common in Missouri (and everywhere else) than property crimes, Missouri does have some of the nation’s highest rates of such incidents.

• Missouri’s overall violent crime rate is 488 per 100,000 residents, which is 28 percent higher than the national violent crime rate of 381 per 100,000.
• Missouri ranks ninth among all the states for violent crimes and has the highest violent crime rate in the Midwest.
• In addition to having the region’s highest overall crime rate, Missouri also ranks first in the Midwest for murder — a rate that puts it in sixth place nationally.

Read the Whole Article

The post Most Dangerous States in America by Crime Rate appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Digital Revolution Equals Communism

Finally, equality has arrived.

Watch on Rumble.

Artificial intelligence greatly empowers scammers and malevolent uses of the Internet.  Malwarebytes provides updates on the latest threats.  See here, here, and here.

The digital revolution and artificial intelligence are not only the greatest possible threat to our privacy and financial security, but also to our values, because the digital revolution makes possible Communism, our likely future.  Humans, like the Borg  in Star Trek, will no longer be individuals capable of thought.  They will be part of a collective with a collective mind imposed by official narratives, with all unofficial narratives censored as misinformation. 

Already in American universities and public schools students are being taught that compliance with official narratives is rewarded and that intelligence is the ability to remember and repeat. Even this is being bypassed, because students no longer know a subject or how to use language to write a theme.  AI does it for them, so of what does modern education consist?  It consists of knowing how to use AI to solve math and physics problems and write your history and English papers.  You don’t need to know math, physics, history, or how to use the language. Never learning these skills, education produces uneducated citizens.

These are precisely the people who will be made useless by AI. AI has a massive advantage over researchers and memory and repeat. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects will be needed only in small numbers to type into the computers the medical symptoms, legal precedents, architectural parameters for the building, and the parameters of the engineering problem.  AI’s ability to recognize patterns and to rapidly search data bases eliminates most purposes of the upper professional classes.

The process of technology separating students from learning skills perhaps began with handheld calculators, which resulted in children ceasing to learn the multiplication tables.  With the advent of computer keyboards, students ceased to learn to write cursive.

As AI replaces human skills, it also destroys human jobs. What people, especially free market libertarian economists, have not understood is that unlike earlier technological advances, AI eliminates the need of humans to do jobs. AI is a step beyond offshoring. Offshoring eliminated Americans jobs by giving the jobs to China, other parts of Asia and Mexico.  But still humans did the jobs. Human performance was not eliminated, just a change in location of performance.

In earlier times when technology destroyed household jobs (as in the “putting out system,” see Appendix at the end) and relocated them in factories, the technological advance did not eliminate the need for humans to do the jobs.  The factory system just collected the jobs under one roof.

AI is a totally different form of technology.  It eliminates the need for people. So what does humanity do? The absence of purpose is why Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum want to reduce the world population.

In an earlier article, I said that a colleague and I would present a case that AI would liberate mankind by taking over undesirable and dreary  jobs.  My colleague sincerely believes this, but I do not. 

I think that AI disconnects people from one another and from themselves.  I regard it as not merely inconvenience but as the epitome of evil.

Nevertheless, I will try to keep my commitment to present a possible positive portrait of the digital revolution. This is the first task in my life in which I have no confidence.  If readers would like to contribute to forming a positive portrait of AI, I am pleased to hear from them.  There are positive aspects.  For example, people can work from home and participate in face-to-face meetings and conferences without travel.  But even the positive aspects have costs.  Working from home is isolating, as is the absence of travel which reduces experiences.  Is life in a virtual world really life?

Appendix:

The putting-out system

Certain industries that were small at the outset of the Middle Ages grew to be quite large in scale, and this growth influenced changes in the organization of work. The most important of these was the wool-cloth industry.

For reasons of cost and availability, wool was the basic clothing material in western Europe until the beginning of modern times (19th century US cotton plantations in the South altered the composition of clothing). Linen and silk were too costly for any large-scale use, and cotton was grown only in small volumes. The production of cloth from wool involved several time-consuming steps: cleaning and carding (straightening curled and knotted fibers sheared from the sheep), spinning the fibers into thread, weaving the thread into cloth, shearing off knots and roughness, and dyeing. All these processes could be carried on within a single peasant household, for they required only simple apparatus and rudimentary skills. Typically, children carded the wool, women operated the spinning wheel, and men worked the loom shuttles.

The cloth produced by such crude tools and relatively unskilled workers was rough but serviceable. Those above the peasant class, however, desired the more comfortable and attractive clothing that was produced by skilled craftsmen. The resulting demand for better textiles caused the industry to outgrow the peasant household means of production.

A new organization of work, called the “putting-out system,” was instituted in which a merchant clothier bought raw wool, “put it out” to be carded, spun, and woven into cloth, and then carried the cloth through the finishing processes with the help of skilled craftsmen. Because the spinners and weavers remained peasants, they also earned part of their living from the plots on which their cottages stood, meaning that agriculture and industry were pursued as something of an integrated enterprise. The man could work in the field while his wife spun, and in winter the man helped with textile production. At harvest time every hand was out in the fields, leaving the spinning wheels and looms temporarily idle.

The putting-out system differed from peasant household production in that the merchant clothier, or entrepreneur, bought the raw wool and owned the product through all stages of its preparation (the cottage workers still owned their own spinning wheels, looms, and other tools). Thus, the peasant farmer came to work on materials that did not belong to him. On the other hand, the work was performed at home (known as the cottage system or domestic system) rather than in a factory, and work proceeded at the worker’s pace. The merchant simply organized the work by arranging the order and sequence of the various technical processes—he did not supervise the workers’ actual performance. Nevertheless, the merchant clothier who began putting out cloth came to control the entire production process. This represented a step toward the industrial capitalism that emerged in the 19th century.

Industrial capitalism resulted from the Enclosures. Prior to the Enclosures, land was not owned in the sense that it is today. Lords and serfs had use rights in the land.  No one owned it. Lords had use rights in serfs’ labor, because the original deal establishing the feudal system was that free people became serfs in exchange for protection from marauding predator Vikings, Saracens, Huns.

The Crusades brought home to Europe and England that there were delightful consumption goods unavailable in the West. The realization arose that if the manor could be organized for the production of cash crops, instead of kept as an instrument of self-sufficiency, money would be available for trade.  This realization required the demise of an economy in which use rights determined property rights and as the land was not owned the land could not be sold.  

The transformation–the Enclosures–achieved according to Karl Marx “by fire and sword,” created private ownership in land and a labor market.  Serfs were no longer subject to the government of their time owning part of their labor.  Serfs emerged as free men who owned their own labor (there was no income tax) and sold it in labor markets.  Thus did the Enclosures create a labor market and the private ownership of property. 

The post Artificial Intelligence Is Bringing Us the Communism That Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot Were Unable To Deliver appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s Opening Day for Major League Baseball, one of my favorite days of the year. Baseball fans around the country, no matter their favorite team—from the lowly Athletics to the mighty Dodgers—today are optimistic about their team’s chances. In spite of football’s greater popularity these days, baseball remains America’s pastime, and more importantly, baseball is the sport that best teaches the lessons of life. I’d even go so far as to say it is a quintessentially Catholic sport.

The beauty and uniqueness of baseball has been recognized by many writers over the years. Why is baseball the most poetic of all sports? There’s something of the infinite in baseball that speaks to our own final destination. Unlike most sports, baseball has no game clock (yes, baseball now has a pitch clock, but that simply moves the game along and does not determine when a game ends.) Even down by 10 runs in the bottom of the ninth, your team still has a chance, albeit small, of winning—the opposing team can’t simply run out the clock.

That lack of a game clock is seen as a negative in today’s attention-deficit culture. We’re used to scrolling through 30-second sports highlights on our smartphones—not sitting through a leisurely 3-4 hour game. Yet baseball reminds us of our true ultimate destination, our ultimate goal. We are made to rest in peaceful bliss for all eternity, and for the baseball fan, being at the ballpark on a Sunday afternoon can seem like a little slice of heaven.

Baseball also has, in a certain sense, an infinite field. Yes, ballfields have fences to designate home runs, but one of the great joys in baseball is watching a powerful hitter blast a ball far over that fence, seemingly into eternity. When and where will it land? The only limit is physics. Those seconds when we’re waiting for the ball to land in the stands are a momentary blissful pause in the hecticness of life.

When I was young, most youth baseball fields did not have fences, which made the unlimited nature of a field more apparent. One year my older brother was playing right field in a game against Ken Griffey, Jr. The future hall-of-famer came up to bat and launched one far over my brother’s head. Since there was no fence, he had to spin around and chase the ball down. By the time he finally picked up the ball and turned to throw it in, Griffey had already circled the bases and stood celebrating at home plate with his teammates. My brother was fully aware at that moment of the infinite nature of baseball fields.

My son and several of my daughters also played youth baseball and softball. While youth sports have gotten out of control today, we were fortunate to be in leagues that were respectful of family life (no games on Sundays, for example). As a parent, I found that playing baseball was a school of virtue for my children.

One of the sport’s most distinct features is the frequency of failure: even the best hitters in the world fail to record a hit almost 7 out of every 10 times at the plate. Especially in our era of helicopter parents and snowflake children, teaching kids how to fail is one of life’s most important lessons. Whenever we fail, we must learn to get back up, whether that’s after striking out with the bases loaded or after succumbing to a persistent sin. The failure rate of baseball teaches young people persistence and, most importantly, humility—two virtues essential for the spiritual life.

Even among families that participate in youth sports, many are wary of professional sports, and there’s good reason to be. While sports are healthy endeavors, our culture’s overemphasis on them is decidedly unhealthy—our sports stars quickly become idols. Making matters worse, many sports leagues have gone woke in recent years. Gambling has become more and more entwined with professional sports leagues. And of course many players aren’t exactly Catholic role models.

Read the Whole Article

The post Baseball Springs Eternal appeared first on LewRockwell.

The usual World Economic Forum (WEF) show that captures and dominates all of Davos for a week starts on Monday, 20 January and lasts until Friday, 24 January. It is an ever-increasing nuisance for the population of Davos, an otherwise lovely winter resort place, converted every year into a high-end bordello – for the little carnal pleasures of the rich and famous attending the WEF glamour show.

This year, the elite participants are to be protected and defended from illusionary terror attacks by nothing less than Swiss Army fighter jets. BRAVO!

The 2025 Davos Forum will run under the theme of ‘Collaboration for the Intelligent Age’, which will encompass five “distinct but highly interconnected thematic priorities”, the WEF says on its website.

• Rebuilding trust
• Reimagining growth
• Investing in people
• Safeguarding the planet, and
• Industries in the intelligent age

All of that could easily be summarized in how to robotize humanity – except, of course, the crème of the crop. The elite, those who attend this fiasco show, have nothing to worry. They will remain untouched from the dehumanization process. Unless of course, they fall out of line and favors with their erstwhile Masters. Then their punishment may be severe.

Primarily, it is the plebs they want to reduce, control, and enslave – those that survive this entire dehumanization process.

Reducing means continuing promoting the climate change hoax that kills agriculture, causes famine, diseases, and death; and simultaneously, inventing viruses that require kill-shot vaxxes and death.

Add to this the fully biometric control with digital ID’s and digital vaxx certificates.

This is all shoved under the roof of the sacrosanct United Nations (UN), which during the last few decades has become utterly corrupt and sold to the dark monsters, alias, Deep State, also called the Men in Black with Red Ties.

They would delegate to Mr. Tedros, Director-General of the WHO, powers to decide over health, disease, and death of the 193 UN member nations.

Let us repeat this point: depopulating, robotizing, enslaving and digitally controlling the survivors, is confining the populus into a Digital Gulag.

Do not be fooled, ‘Collaboration for the Intelligent Age’ is code lingo for Digital Gulag.

They will never achieve it.

We, the People, MUST act and be part of this non-violent but active resistance: ignoring what they are doing, shedding fear from our minds and souls, no hatred, be self-assured, as our mind is the most powerful asset each one of us has. Imagine the collective power of eight billion people!

Maybe that is why security is the WEF’s biggest concern this year. More than ever, so-called “terror attacks” is what they fear most, even false flags would do to keep the lies flying.

In an interview a couple of days ago, the Davos police chief answered a journalist’s question why this year the Swiss Army even put fighter jets at disposal of the WEF’s protection. The Police officer said something to the effect, that this year the security system had to be enhanced because of increased terror threats and for the protection of prominent personalities. He mentioned some hundred heads of states attending [not much different from other years].

The doubling-up question:

Is it because this year President Trump will be attending?

The paraphrased answer was:

This could be a consideration, but at this point we believe President Trump will only attend virtually, by video stream. But we do not know for sure.

Mr. Trump may decide, last-minute, to be here in person, as he was already in 2018, during his first term.

Among the key personalities who need protection of this year’s WEF’s Davos show are

• US President Trump;
• Madame von der Leyen, unelected President of the EU Commission;
• China’s Vice-Premier, Ding Xuexiang;
• German Chancellor Olaf Scholz;
• Argentina’s President Javier Milei;
• Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General;
• Bangladesh government Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus;
• Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa; and
• Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Imagine the Swiss tax-payer funding the protection of corrupt Zelenskyy, as they did already for his in-person appearance at the disaster “Peace [war] Conference” in mid-June 2024 on the Buergenstock, where he was allowed to call the shots, resulting in nobody from Russia being invited.

One just wonders – where have Swiss ethics and sovereignty from ancient times gone?

And not to forget, like every year, the big defenders of Mother Earth’s climate and environment, those that openly decry the use of hydrocarbons due to CO2 emission, fly into Switzerland from around the globe with hundreds of private jets, leaving thousands of tons of CO2 in the air and clogging the airports of Zurich, Geneva, and Basle. Many of them continue their environmentally unfriendly journey to Davos by helicopter shuttle services.

In summary up to 5,000 army soldiers will be deployed plus hundreds of police from all over Switzerland, and the ever-present surveillance helicopters. This is a public statement about the security stronghold Davos has become for the 2025 WEF Conference:

“The military personnel are responsible, among other things, for maintaining air sovereignty. To this end, armed fighter jets are on permanent patrol. Ground-based air defense also helps to keep the airspace safe. In addition, an extensive radar system is used. These tasks are carried out in close cooperation with partners in Austria and Italy.”

There will be a no-fly zone:

“The airspace above Davos will be restricted to a radius of around 46 kilometers on Friday, January 17 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and from Monday, January 20, 8 a.m. to Saturday, January 25, 5 p.m. The same applies to drones.”

For more details on the WEF’s Davos 2025 event, see this.

Thinking outside the conventional box – isn’t it ironic to observe the efforts made in terms of costs and physical defense to protect an event organized by a Swiss tax-free super rich NGO, arguably the richest in the world, with diplomatic immunity, catering to the super rich and powerful, who will be talking about how to dehumanize, robotize, digitize the common people of the world’s 193 nations, to better control and enslave them?

Even in Switzerland, poverty is rapidly increasing, though talking about it is taboo. Yet, the Swiss Government is debating about how to finance the proposed Swiss State pension increase by 8.33% – equivalent to an average monthly maximum of about CHF 200 (about US$ 210).

Swiss people, by allowing their government hosting these WEF events, are nothing short of financing their own demise.

Expanding this question and analysis to a worldwide scale, to the UN, you may ask, why do people around the globe allow the UN deciding their fate?

In June 2019, curiously just a few months before the onset of the covid plandemic, the UN and the WEF signed an illegal cooperation agreement, sustaining the common objectives expressed in the WEF’s Great Reset and the UN Agenda 2030. The UN, created after WWII (October 24, 1945, in San Francisco, with then 51 founding member states), was supposed to be the world body, remaining neutral, to guarantee and protect the world from WW-type aggressions.

Today, the UN has long ceased being neutral, but has been bought by western interests which fund it and politically manipulate it, according to their imperial ambitions.

Therefore, the ONE call for a People’s New World Order, is Exit the UN system. Organizations like the WEF would automatically fall by the wayside.

For the immediate future and as to the WEF-Davos debates, outcomes, conclusions, and certainly inhumane visions for the future of mankind – stay tuned and prepared.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post WEF Davos 2025 – More Grotesque Than Ever. Robotizing and Depopulating appeared first on LewRockwell.

Israeli leaders constantly refer to the Palestinian people as being “Amalekites.” But their Jewish supremacy goes even further than that. Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow Zionists constantly refer to the Palestinian people (the “Amalekites”) as “animals” and “subhuman” that can be mercilessly tortured and killed with moral and civil impunity.

The Amalekites during the days of Moses were the descendants of Esau, the son of Isaac and brother of Jacob—so they were biologically the nephews and nieces of Jacob (renamed “Israel” by Jehovah). The point being, the Old Testament Scriptures make it clear that the Amalekites were people (human beings)—even kinsmen of the Israelites.

The God of Abraham and Moses never regarded the Amalekites as anything other than people—wicked people, but people nonetheless. In fact, God dealt with the Amalekites with great longsuffering and grace, waiting over 400 years before bringing divine judgment upon them, thus giving the people of Amalek time to turn from their wickedness and find mercy and forgiveness with God. Why? Because God loves mankind, as we are all made in His image, conceived with an immortal soul. God gave His only begotten Son to die for the sins of mankind—clearly meaning that all mankind possesses an eternal soul.

The greatest-of-all Bible commentators, Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714), wrote in his commentaries regarding the Old Covenant wars of Israel:

In dealing with the worst of enemies, the laws of justice and honour must be observed.

“The laws of justice and honour [the Laws of Nature] must be observed” because even one’s enemy is a human being made in God’s image and, therefore, is a candidate for God’s mercy and redemption.

I invite readers to watch my first message in my series of messages entitled By What Authority Does Zionist Israel Commit Mass Murder Against Women And Children? A Clinical Study Of The Destruction Of The Amalekites And The Old Covenant Laws Of War.

Watch it here.

But the philosophy of the Donald Trump administration is that anyone can be designated as a Palestinian, meaning an Amalekite, undeserving of Natural or constitutional rights.

“He’s not Jewish anymore. He’s a Palestinian.”

With these words, US President Donald Trump did not merely insult Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer – he exposed something far more insidious. In Trump’s world, Palestinian is not just a nationality. It is an accusation, a sentence of exile, a mark of delegitimisation.

Schumer’s crime was questioning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s increasingly authoritarian government. Schumer, a staunch Zionist who has long positioned himself as one of Israel’s most unwavering defenders, dared to suggest that Netanyahu’s extremism was harming Israel’s future.

That alone was enough for Trump to strip him of his Jewishness, to brand him as something else – something meant to be demeaning.

This is not the first time Trump has wielded the word “Palestinian” as a slur. He has used it against former President Joe Biden, against Schumer previously, and indeed against anyone who dares to question Israel’s policies.

A Palestinian can be arrested for protesting, fired for speaking, or blacklisted for dissenting. And now, anyone can be treated as one.

This is the real warning in Trump’s attack. You don’t have to be Palestinian to be punished like one. You don’t have to be Arab or Muslim. You only have to step out of line.

Even Jewishness is no longer protection. Your identity has become conditional, your history disposable. You can be declared a traitor, an enemy within, someone who has forfeited their place.

The moment you question Israel, you become Palestinian – not by birth, but by decree. Because in this world, a Palestinian has no rights, nor does anyone who defends them.

(Source)

Donald Trump is ushering in a new brand of authoritarianism, one marked by a single accusation—an accusation that is so broad it can be interpreted anyway the Trump Reich pleases: the accusation of antisemitism.

Listen to Trump’s uber-Zionist Attorney General Pam Bondi:

US attorney general labels pro-Palestine protesters ‘domestic terrorists.’

US Attorney General Pam Bondi has described pro-Palestinian student protesters as “domestic terrorists,” warning that universities could lose federal funding if they fail to address anti-Semitism on campus.

In February, the US Justice Department formed a multi-agency task force focused on combating anti-Semitism, with its top priority targeting harassment in schools and universities. Officials said the group would coordinate federal enforcement and “root out” anti-Semitic behavior on campuses nationwide.

Protesters, including Jewish students, argue that criticism of Israeli policy does not constitute anti-Semitism. They say advocacy for Palestinian rights aligns with core American values.

(Source)

One would think that an attorney would have at least a rudimentary understanding of the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s pretty clear to me. The government cannot abridge the people’s right to the freedom of speech—even speech it doesn’t like—or the freedom to peaceably assemble (protest) and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Folks, let’s understand what is at stake here. If we are not free to speak, we are not free!

Candace Owens nailed it in this video clip:

We just don’t see Muslims as human life. And to me, to speak about Gaza and talking about casinos and hotels, and these people just lost their entire families. It’s so far removed from humanity. And I have been very disappointed with Trump on his perspectives about Gaza. I think it’s wrong. And I’m tired of America being used as Israel’s piggy bank.

For whatever reason, everyone can critique every other country for taking money from us, and then everyone’s blind when it comes to Israel.

To see those Palestinian children. And the images are seared into my brain. The screaming, the crying, the bleeding, the stuff that we saw on X for the first time, and really realizing how much we had been lied to about what was happening in that region. It was very easy for me to [speak out]. I have to be on the human side of things.

As far as I know, Candace does not have a law degree, but she obviously has more understanding of the First Amendment than Trump’s attorney general.

By the way, Trump and Bondi are in the process of implementing a national Red Flag gun confiscation law. Obviously, neither of them understand the Second Amendment either.

And Trump and Bondi are deadly serious about expunging pro-Palestinian speech:

President Trump’s demand on Tuesday to ban masks at “illegal” anti-Israel protests came just one day after Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt issued the same demand at the ADL’s “Never is Now” conference.

(Source)

Of course, banning masks at protests allows government surveillance to identify individual protesters so that they might be prosecuted afterward. That protesters feel compelled to wear masks shows that right now America cannot be truly defined as a free country.

Trump calls anti-Israel protests “illegal.” But the First Amendment says they are not only “legal” but they are “protected.”

It is painfully obvious that Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom or the rule of law. Everything about Donald Trump exudes authoritarianism.

As long as I’m living in a world composed of morally and spiritually fallen men, I no more desire to be under right-wing authoritarianism than I do left-wing authoritarianism, theocratic authoritarianism or secular authoritarianism. In this world, authoritarianism of any kind is the enemy of Liberty.

On April 18, 1775, in defiance of the soldiers of the British Crown, John Adams shouted, “We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!” This became the rallying cry and motto of our War for Independence.

And speaking of our War for Independence, is Trump really planning to bring America back under the British Commonwealth? Did Trump learn anything about the Battle of Lexington, Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech or the Declaration of Independence? If he did, you sure can’t tell it.

Trump says he “loves” King Charles. That’s no doubt because Trump loves the power of monarchy. And, as I have written here and here, Trump and Elon Musk are working arduously to bring America under the rule of a techno-monarchy. It is no coincidence that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Canada’s current Prime Minister Mark Carney were both members of the globalist/technocratic Trilateral Commission.

Read this very important article relevant to Trump’s possible decision to bring the U.S. under the British Commonwealth. This is all part of the Trump/Musk/Thiel plan to bring about global technocratic rule, which I have already written about.

Trump also must love the British attack on free speech.

Trump needs to read this report:

I am a Holocaust survivor. UK police interviewed me for protesting genocide

It’s vital for all of us in Britain to speak out now against our own government’s complicity in Israel’s genocide.

I was seven years old when Germany invaded and occupied their unreliable ally, Hungary, in March 1944. This makes me 87 years old now. But my memories of hiding as a hunted Jew on false papers, and the utter devastation of the climactic fighting around us, between a trapped German Army and the Red Army, are still a crystal clear memory. I see the burnt-out cars, tanks, dead horses and human bodies, ammunition and helmets thrown about, burnt-out buildings, mountains of rubble and broken glass everywhere – just like tragically destroyed Gaza is looking today.

For over a year now it’s been clear that Israel’s plan is to destroy Palestinian society in Gaza in order to force as many people as possible to leave. This policy has many differences from Nazi Germany’s plan to destroy Jewish society in Europe – but it also has many similarities. That is why, as a Holocaust survivor, I’ve felt compelled to join various pro-Palestine protests in London.

We don’t know quite how far those in power intend to go with their restrictions on the right to protest. But we do know they want to portray London’s pro-Palestine demos as tainted with anti-Semitism. This is despite the fact that these protests have included thousands of Jews and that many Jews, including myself, have addressed the protesters from the stage.

Most importantly, this whole campaign is an intentional distraction from the main issue, which is to stop the Gaza genocide now. As Israel resumes its indiscriminate bombing – murdering hundreds more civilians in Gaza – it’s vital for all of us in Britain to speak out now against our own government’s complicity in Israel’s genocide.

Every time we hear a politician talk about Israel, they call it “America’s greatest friend and ally.” Really? What is their definition of friendship? Name one thing Israel has done FOR America. All Israel does is bleed America financially, morally, spiritually, culturally and politically—and drag America into its perpetual wars of aggression, which have ZERO national interests for the United States.

When President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi call the people of America “Palestinians” and “domestic terrorists,” they are regurgitating the Jewish supremacist/racist mantra of Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow Zionists.

Don’t believe me? Listen to what this very influential Jewish rabbi recently said:

It really doesn’t matter if Donald Trump or Donald Duck wins the US elections. It really doesn’t matter if Kamala Harris or Kermit the Frog wins.

When it comes to international affairs, anything that impinges on the future of this world, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris have no freedom of choice. They become like puppets. And who pulls the strings of those puppets? We do. The Jewish people.

In other words, we are all Amalekites.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post We Are All Amalekites appeared first on LewRockwell.