Lew Rockwell Institute

The great Populist attorney Robert Barnes prepares a Daily Brief for members of the VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com community.  Today’s Brief featured these excellent items of specific interest to our LRC community also:

 Daily Deep Dive: Conservative Opposition to Foreign Meddling

1. History of GOP opposition to foreign meddling. https://crdh.rrchnm.org/essays/v07-republican-partys-other-right/
2. Working class opposition to foreign wars. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1957488
3. GOP opposition to NATO. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-on-the-north-atlantic-treaty/
4. The heart of opposition to foreign war: Appalachia. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/the-christian-conservative-who-opposed-the-vietnam
5. Conservative distrust of the war machine. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/merchants-of-death/

*Bonus: The Great Lion’s opposition to war. https://history.nebraska.gov/secretary-of-state-william-jennings-bryan-and-the-sinking-of-the-lusitania/

I added several LRC items in response to Barnes’ assortment:

Excellent selections and items in today’s Barnes’ Brief focusing on Old Right antiwar/Pro peace opposition of American to war. Here’s more —

How the Deep State Destroyed the Old Right and Created Synthetic “Liberal” and “Conservative” Movements to Rationalize the Projection of Power and Hegemony of the American Empire
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-the-deep-state-destroyed-the-old-right-and-created-synthetic-liberal-and-conservative-movements-to-rationalize-the-projection-of-power-and-hegemony-of-the-american-empire/

The Real Aggressor, by Murray N. Rothbard – How the Populist Old Right Differed from the “Buckleyite” New Right in the Early Cold War
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-real-aggressor-by-murray-n-rothbard-how-the-populist-old-right-differed-from-the-buckleyite-new-right-in-the-early-cold-war/

The Foreign Policy of the Old Right, by Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.rothbard.it/essays/foreign-policy-old-right.pdf

The Wisdom of Murray Rothbard, by Charles Burris
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-wisdom-of-murray-rothbard/

Old Right, New Right, by Charles Burris
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/old-right-new-right/

Myths of the Cold War, By Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2000/01/murray-n-rothbard/myths-of-the-cold-war/

Why Conservatives Love War and the State, By Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/03/murray-n-rothbard/why-conservatives-love-war-and-the-state-2/

The Rebellious Old Right, By Wanjiru Njoya
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/09/no_author/the-rebellious-old-right/

The True Right, By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01/lew-rockwell/the-true-right/

The Betrayal of the American Right, By Charles Burris
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/09/charles-burris/the-betrayal-of-the-american-right/

Buckley Revealed, By Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/08/murray-n-rothbard/buckley-revealed/

Prophets on the Right, By Ryan McMaken
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/ryan-mcmaken/prophets-on-the-right/

The Old Right Was Right, By James Leroy Wilson
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/04/james-leroy-wilson/the-old-right-was-right/

Robert Nisbet: Conservative Sociologist, By Gary North
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/08/gary-north/antiwar-conservative/

The post Focus Upon The Old Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

Exposing The Darkness

The post Former Assistant Secretary of HUD Catherine Fitts: The Kirk Assassination is a PSYOP appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

The Telegraph

The post Subscribe now Log in Trump to run Gaza with Blair appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Israel Wins TikTok? appeared first on LewRockwell.

An urban political machine is a party organization led by a powerful “boss” or a small group that commands enough votes to maintain political control of a city, county, or state. During their peak in the Gilded Age (1870s–1900s), machines exploited rapid urbanization and large immigrant populations by providing essential services in exchange for political loyalty and votes. Though the classic version has declined, some aspects have persisted in modern forms.

Characteristics

Centralized authority: A single, influential “boss” or a small group of leaders exercises tight, hierarchical control over the party’s activities and government appointments.

Patronage and clientelism: The machine rewards loyal supporters, known as “party faithful,” with government jobs, lucrative contracts, and personal favors. This “spoils system” ensures a network of support dependent on the machine’s continued success.

Voter mobilization: Machines were highly effective at mobilizing large numbers of voters, especially immigrant and working-class communities, through grassroots efforts and community ties.

Social services: In the absence of a comprehensive social safety net, machines filled a crucial role by providing aid, housing, and jobs to new immigrants and the poor.

Corruption: Practices such as bribery, graft, and election fraud were common to maintain power. “Honest graft,” a term coined by Tammany Hall’s George Washington Plunkitt, referred to using inside information for personal financial gain, which the machines viewed differently from criminal activity.

Preston Sturges was one of the most brilliant (and unfortunately today largely unknown) screenwriter/directors. He was the master of the screwball comedy and his hilarious convoluted plots had an uncommon realism and a “speaking truth to power” tone that made them stand out from the usual banal Hollywood fare of his time.

His masterpiece in this regard was The Great McGinty. I used to show it each year to my high school Political Parties students for it perfectly captures the intricate workings and corruption of the urban political machine. Cinephile Murray Rothbard probably loved this 1940 film, as his editor of The Progressive Era, Patrick Newman details in this recent Mises University splendid presentation, “The Progressive Era and Crony Political and Local Reform,” and article “Why Progressives Wanted Less Democracy and Lower Voter Turnout.”

Other Preston Sturges’ cinematic treasures you should not miss include Sullivan’s Travels (1941); The Lady Eve (1941); The Palm Beach Story (1942); and Hail the Conquering Hero (1944). An open secret to Sturges’ success was his remarkable ensemble cast he used repeatedly in his films.

ADDENDUM: One of Murray Rothbard’s close friends and colleagues, the economist/historian Walter E. Grinder related the following to me concerning The Great McGinty —

“Great movie and super-star director! You were right, Murray Rothbard and I were great Preston Sturges fans. We often visited one of several theaters in NYC that showed nothing but old movies. They occasionally showed Sturges films: and, when we saw that Sturges and Co were in town, one or another of us would quickly remind the other that we should go to one of the late-night showings. Also, we never missed a W.C. Fields movie.”

Related is this other outstanding film I also showed my Political Parties classes when I taught high school –The Last Hurrah

(A poignant cinematic examination of how urban machine politics were affected by early television; Directed by the legendary John Ford, starring Spencer Tracy with an outstanding ensemble cast)

The post The Two Greatest Movies on Urban Machine Politics Ever Made appeared first on LewRockwell.

For people whom the government has in its sights, the United States has ceased to be a free society. In their book The Tyranny of Good Intentions (Crown, 2008), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton have made a strong case for this, and since they wrote, matters have gotten worse.

You might at first be inclined to dismiss this charge as exaggerated, but the authors devise a thought experiment that quickly induces a second look at their startling thesis. They describe in some detail the trial and subsequent execution of Nikolai Bukharin in 1938. Bukharin, once the “golden boy” of the Soviet Communist Party, stood accused of plotting with foreign powers to destroy the Russian Revolution. Of course, the charges were mere figments of Stalin’s crazed imagination, but this did not save the hapless Bukharin.

Quite the contrary, the trial proceeded to its foreordained conclusion. If evidence against Bukharin did not exist, no matter; “torture and [the threat of] family annihilation” hung over each prisoner and would secure the desired end. A sad tale, no doubt; but what has it got to do with us? Surely American prosecutors do not regularly employ torture to obtain their convictions. Not for them the three rules for securing a confession often attributed to Stalin: “beat, beat, and beat again!”

Roberts and Stratton dissent. Their point in describing the Bukharin episode is to focus an unaccustomed beam of light on American criminal justice. True, American defendants rarely suffer physical abuse, but psychological torture pervades our supposedly free system. Our authors here have in mind plea-bargaining. “In the United States today, plea bargaining has displaced trial by jury as the dominant method of criminal dispute resolution . . . 90 to 95 percent of all federal, state, and local criminal cases are settled by plea bargains”

But what has this to do with torture? “Defendants who insist on exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial risk a substantially increased sentence if they are convicted, and this sentencing differential alone is enough to make plea bargaining coercive” According to common law, a defendant must be proved guilty; but plea-bargaining enables the State to avoid its burden. Haven’t we not come very close to the forced confessions that shock us in the Russian case?

The authors denounce on similar grounds inducing one defendant to testify against others in return for lenient treatment. Blackstone condemned this practice in the eighteenth century, noting that such induced confessions cannot be trusted; but prosecutors, anxious at all costs for a high conviction rate, have no use for long-established historical rights.

But have we a choice? Supporters of the current system will claim that full trials for everyone accused cost too much. Wouldn’t the vast increase in costs that would result if plea-bargaining were abolished impose a draconian tax burden? But the answer to that is simple.  We need a rigorous pruning of the legal system. If, for example, putting people in prison for taking drugs was purged from the criminal roster, wouldn’t the number of required trials drastically lessen? Even more important, we need to cut government spending massively, and David Stockman and others have shown us how to do it.

You may raise another objection. Will an innocent defendant so readily plead guilty? Won’t he trust that the safeguards against false convictions will insure an acquittal for him? Unfortunately, these safeguards have to a large extent gone by the board. People may be tried for hitherto unheard of “crimes”; and in their efforts to defend themselves, they face unprecedented obstacles.

A prime requirement for conviction under common law is mens rea you must intend to commit a criminal act in order to be found guilty. No longer does this restriction apply, as the Exxon Corporation discovered to its cost after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. “The government’s `innovative legal approach’ was to criminalize the accident. It is absolutely certain that America’s largest oil company did not run the Valdez aground with the criminal intention of polluting the water and killing migratory birds. Yet, the Justice Department’s criminal indictment assumed that Exxon did”

The assault on mens rea forms but one salient in the full-scale invasion of legal liberties. Not only may you be found guilty without showing criminal intent: you may also be convicted for activity that was not criminal when you did it. Once more, violations of a fundamental legal principle often proceed under cover of protecting the environment. The notorious Superfund Act “meant total, rather than proportionate, retroactive liability for parties who were in any way connected with the waste dumps prior to the passage of Superfund, regardless of the legality of their actions at the time they occurred”

As if this were not enough, the modern prosecutor has means to disrupt the trial as well. Attorneys who defend too vigorously the “wrong” clients may find themselves charged with criminal conspiracy. Both attorney and client face asset forfeiture before trial, making resistance to prosecution next to impossible. Small wonder that many succumb to the offer of a plea bargain that obviates any need for the prosecutor to prove charges. Should any defendant be brave enough to resist, prosecutors may subject him to a barrage of unfavorable publicity. Such a trial by the press helped bring down Clark Clifford, one of the highest and mightiest of the elite. Just as members of the Politburo often found themselves victims of the Red Terror, so no one in America is safe.

I have so far barely mentioned the most dangerous threat to our liberties. Let us suppose that, through skill or luck, a defendant is found not guilty. The government can still confiscate his assets. Even “those who are acquitted cannot recover their property without proving that there was no `probable cause’ for the seizure of their property” And what if you have never been charged with a crime at all? You are by no means safe. If government agents suspect a crime has taken place on your property, it is forfeit, even though you knew nothing at all about the alleged crime.

How has the virtual destruction of our legal system come about? Our authors place much of the blame on a surprising source: the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. A precocious student, Bentham attended at a young age the lectures of Sir William Blackstone and found them not at all to his liking.

The great English jurist stressed fixed rules of procedure that had been developed over the course of centuries of British law. Fundamental to Blackstone’s analysis lay a basic premise: people need protection from the government. Rights draw a privileged sanctuary around the individual, guaranteeing him against arbitrary power. As Blackstone saw matters, the law reflected no comprehensive scheme that a single mind had devised. Rather, “freedom slowly broadened down, from precedent to precedent,” as Tennyson later put it.

Our authors not only accept Blackstone’s account but also look with sympathy on a view of legal history brought to perfection in the nineteenth century by William Stubbs and Edward Augustus Freeman. According to them, British liberty was a Saxon inheritance that could be traced ultimately to German tribesmen. Saxon restrictions on royal power suffered a near fatal blow from the Norman invasion in 1066, and the precedents cited by Blackstone resulted from a long struggle to regain that inheritance.

To Blackstone’s entire conception, Bentham interposed an objection. Doesn’t the entire view  manifest blind rule-worship? The purpose of law, after all, is to ferret out lawbreakers and, by punishing them, to deter others from following their path. If so, legal rules must be judged by their efficiency in securing that end. If torture, when carefully applied, enables the magistrate to secure information at less cost than alternatives, why forbid it? Again, why limit imprisonment to those who have already committed crimes? Shouldn’t those likely to offend be subject to sanction? The mere fact that they have so far done nothing wrong imposes no insuperable bar to action.

Roberts and Stratton have given us a book of vital importance. Let’s do everything we can to encourage people to read it and to restore our legal system so that people regain their rights.

The post Our Totalitarian Legal System appeared first on LewRockwell.

For faithful Catholics, the news that yet another pro-abortion politician is being celebrated by the liberal-leaning ecclesial authorities of their own Church is discouraging. Their sorrow is not just because Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich has decided to grant a “Lifetime Achievement Award” to 80-year-old Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)—a Catholic politician who has devoted his career to championing abortion access at every turn. It is also because of the deafening silence from nearly all of the bishops throughout the country. For Catholics who believe the Church must speak truth to power, this moment feels like abandonment.

Aside from a handful of courageous bishops, the 430 active and retired bishops who participate in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have remained publicly silent while one of their own honors a politician whose 100 percent pro-abortion voting score in 2024 from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund stands in direct opposition to the Church’s pro-life teachings. There has been no collective challenge, no visible dissent, and no public defense of the unborn from the episcopate.

Cardinal Cupich must know—as all faithful Catholics have known for decades—that Sen. Durbin could be counted on for voting in favor of the most radical abortion policies. Most recently, on January 22, 2025, Durbin voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which would require medical intervention for infants who survive an attempted abortion. Later in the year, Durbin voted against defunding Planned Parenthood. The previous July, Durbin voted in favor of the Reproductive Freedom for Women Act. And two years earlier, Durbin supported late-term abortion by voting against the Kennedy Amendment 3758 which would have banned abortion after 20 weeks.

For faithful Catholics committed to defending the most vulnerable, Sen. Durbin’s vote against S.2745—the Down Syndrome Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act—was especially disheartening. The bill sought to protect unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome from being targeted for elective abortion; yet Durbin opposed it.

There is a concern that Catholic politicians who might have been persuaded to take a courageous pro-life stand will instead conclude: If their own bishops won’t spend moral capital on this issue, why should they? The hierarchy of their own Church, once a source of moral clarity, now offers them little public support. But thankfully, there are still faithful Catholics who refuse to be discouraged by the silence of their shepherds—and who continue to act boldly in defense of the unborn.

Catholics need to support those few faithful bishops who do find the courage to speak out. Responding to the scandal of awarding a “Lifetime Achievement Award” to Durbin, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois—the presiding bishop of Sen. Durbin’s home diocese—told a reporter for The Pillar that the award “risks causing grave scandal, confusing the faithful about the Church’s unequivocal teaching on the sanctity of human life.” Bishop Paprocki has barred Sen. Durbin from receiving Holy Communion since 2021 because of his pro-abortion activities.

San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone voiced solidarity on  with Bishop Paprocki, calling for “clarity and unity in defending the dignity of human life” and urging Cardinal Cupich to reconsider the award that would “sow confusion.” As importantly, the archbishop added that he hopes that “this will be a clarion call to all members of the Body of Christ to speak out to make clear the grave evil that is the taking of innocent human life.”

That is already happening. Most recently, Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay posted on  that he “joined Bishop Paprocki and Archbishop Cordileone in urging that Cardinal Cupich retract the award.” Bishop James Conley of Lincoln said he “was shocked and bewildered” by the award.

On September 22, Illinois Right to Life announced plans for a peaceful protest on November 3 outside St. Ignatius College Prep, where the Archdiocese of Chicago will present Sen. Durbin with the award. And while the protest may come too late to prevent the scandal, a groundswell of support is building on social media for the courageous bishops who dared to speak out—rejecting the honor bestowed on a politician whose career has consistently advanced the culture of death.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Silent Shepherds, Forsaken Lambs appeared first on LewRockwell.

‘Stop writing about the Mideast or we will throw acid in your and your son’s faces.’ 

Such was the threat shouted through the front door of our New York City apartment where my mother and I lived in the 1950’s.  Then there was frequent pounding on the door at 3 am with further threats and obscenities. 

My mother’s offense? Being one of the first female journalists to cover the Mideast, a region barely known at that time to most Americans. My mother, Nexhmie Zaimi, was born in Albania, a former province of the Ottoman Empire. She was the first girl in Albania to go to high school which was run by Presbyterian missionaries. She was also a natural born rebel.  She scandalized the capitol, Tirana, by refusing to wear a veil and speaking of emigrating to the United States.

She managed to get to the US and somehow was enrolled at the prestigious Wellesley College. There, she wrote a stellar book, ‘Daughter of the Eagle,’ about growing up in semi-feudal Albania.  It became a national best-seller.

Mrs. Zaimi then attended Columbia University Journalism school – when it was still a bastion of free speech. She met my father, a New York City attorney, married before the war, and soon became a journalist and lecturer. She also worked with the predecessor of the CIA in early post-war years, then began reporting on the Mideast for the US State Department. In the 1950’s, she warned Washington that unless the Palestine problem was resolved with justice that the Mideast would erupt in fury against the United States.  That came in 2001.

My mother was a star journalist despite her grave eye problems. On her own, with no support, she managed to interview Egypt’s ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Jordan’s King Hussein, King Farouk, Egypt’s old ruler, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, Gen. Naguib and Iraq’s strongman, Nuri al-Said.

While traveling in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, Mrs. Zaimi was shocked to discover hundreds of thousands (750,000 in total) Palestinian villagers who had been driven from their villages at gunpoint, or by premeditated massacres by Jewish regular and irregular forces. These refugees were living in cardboard boxes or metal sheds, many starving and ill.

My mother began writing and lecturing about their plight. What had become Northern Israel (the Arab region of Galilee and Haifa) ‘was a land without people for a people without land’ as the Zionist party line went. A catchy phrase to be sure but wholly untrue. Israeli historians have amply chronicled the ethnic cleansing of Northern Palestine. Many of its people ended up in the open-air prison camp of Gaza where they are today victims of brutal ethnic terrorism.   

Pro-Israel advertisers in the newspapers and radio stations that carried my mother’s reports threatened to stop their ads unless she was silenced.   She refused to be quiet – until the threats came to throw acid in my face.  

I’ve had my columns and broadcasts black-listed by major US and Canadian newspapers, radio and TV for my heretical pro-peace views on the Mideast – and my life threatened numerous times.  By now, after sixty years of threats and intimidation, I have learned to live with the threats and being blacklisted. 

Even many former right-wing partisans of Israel are beginning to re-evaluate their thinking as the world turns against Israel’s Final Solution to Palestinians. They have become a martyr people. I am firmly in the camp of those Israelis who understand that they must some day manage to live with their Palestinian neighbors.  I salute the great Israeli journalist Uri Avnery who advocated this peaceful course for decades. 

The partisans of ever Greater Israel are on a road to nowhere. They have managed to get their strongest supporter, Donald Trump, into the White House, but where does he go from there?

My mother died in 2003 in Santa Barbara, California where she had retired. At that time, she was nursing Bosnian children wounded in the Balkan War. Many hailed her as ‘the first lady of Albania.’

The post The Mideast Road to Nowhere appeared first on LewRockwell.

The need to limit the discretion of subordinates is present in every organization. —  Ludwig Von Mises. Bureaucracy

“General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.” — Merkin Muffley, Dr. Strangelove

“Well, I, uh, don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.” — Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson, Dr. Strangelove

The Doomsday Clock, created by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer and other scientists in 1945, gives us some idea of how close the world is to global catastrophe “caused by man-made technologies”— and by their measure it’s 89 seconds to midnight, the closest its ever been.  With the US war industry steering our direction behind the scenes while world leaders in charge of nuclear arsenals trade threats, it’s like watching children playing with dynamite and matches, oblivious to the consequences.

Perhaps President Trump should invite the nuclear bomb fraternity to one of his golf courses where they can focus on driving a ball instead of unleashing Armageddon.  Or perhaps this would be a good time to organize society based on respect for the individual rather than the majority.  But that will be a topic for another day.

The US government has made many enemies since it adopted the National Security State model following World War II, yet most people continue to believe we’re a free people whose votes count, and that our elected leaders and their bureaucratic subordinates are “unswervingly attending day and night to the welfare of the nation,” as Mises wrote.

Along with everything being judged by whether it threatens national security, including Chinese coffee, the government has relentlessly pursued a foreign policy of unilateralism, a deceitful way of telling the world we’re in charge and will beat you up if you don’t cooperate.  And to underscore this policy, the president has decided to rename the Department of Defense to its former label, the Department of War.  But as Ron Paul noted, this could backfire on warmongers if it revives the constitutional requirement for “a Congressional declaration of war.”

According to different sources the federal government has between 400 and  2,000 agencies, depending on what’s counted as an agency.  Some of them operate under the name “independent” allegedly to avoid political influence, with examples including NASA, EPA, FTC, and the most independent of all, the Federal Reserve Board.

Standing on the outside of all this is the Constitution, once briefly kept in Fort Knox during WWII, but permanently secured in an airtight, bulletproof glass case filled with argon gas to prevent deterioration, located at 701 Constitution Avenue in Washington D.C.  Every federal employee swears to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

It’s the “domestic” part that might cause problems in this nuclear-armed world.

As derived from a 2017 Harvard University conference, “Presidential First Use: Is it legal? Is it constitutional? Is it just?” the protocol for unleashing the most destructive weapons ever developed

has two main functions and virtues: first, it concentrates the power and authority over the use of nuclear weapons in the presidency, at the highest level of the executive branch of the US government, thus keeping it out of the hands of the military and others. Second, it enables the president to respond rapidly and decisively to a nuclear attack by an enemy whose missiles may fly from one side of the planet to the other in 30 minutes; or whose missiles launched from submarines in the oceans may fly to targets in the United States in 15 minutes.

Consider for a moment what it means to arm the president with nuclear weapons.  Joe Biden was officially president from 2021-2025 but his cognitive impairments left people wondering who was really making presidential decisions.  Democrats and a Trump-averse media tried to conceal Biden’s problems but a televised debate exposed them to the world.  Democrats did succeed, though, in protecting President Wilson in 1919 when he suffered a catastrophic stroke that “profoundly and irreversibly altered the trajectory of United States history in the 20th century.”

Whether Donald Trump has any secret disabilities that would affect his judgment remains speculative but it’s clear he’s not afraid of taking off-the-wall actions such as renaming the Gulf of Mexico or going on a tariff spree, recently declared illegal but which constitutes “the centerpiece of his economic agenda.”

For now, the government has no first-use nuclear policy, so all nuclear launches would be in response to perceived attacks from another government.  The current protocol is said to launch with minimum delay while securing its necessity through multiple steps of verification and consultation.  In summary,

the president wakes up, gives an order through a system so streamlined that there’s almost no gatekeeping, and, within five minutes, 400 bombs leave on missiles launched out of the Midwest. About 10 minutes later, another 400 leave on missiles launched out of submarines. That’s 800 nuclear weapons—roughly the equivalent of, in round numbers, 15,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Fifteen thousand Hiroshimas?  Really?  That in itself is utter madness.

During this streamlined process the president consults with numerous military aides and advisors who are “legally bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders from officers above them in the Chain of Command, which includes the President.”

But these same people swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the president.  “Therefore, military personnel have a ‘duty to disobey’ unlawful orders that would violate that oath—even if those orders came directly from the President.”

Oops.

Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 — The Commander in Chief Clause — according to interpretation, “The President had the duty and the power to repel sudden attacks,“ which would include sudden missile attacks.  But what if there is disagreement about the threat?  Early detection relies on technology, which always has an element of uncertainty.

On September 26, 1983, in the early hours of the morning, Soviet duty officer Stanislav Petrov saw on his computer screens what appeared to be American missile launches but chose not to report them to his superiors, dismissing them as a false alarm.  In his words, “My colleagues were all professional soldiers, they were taught to give and obey orders.”  Petrov was the only officer on his team that had a civilian education, which in this instance meant he should think.  If Americans were attacking Russians, they would go all out.  What Petrov saw was first one, then several other missiles in succession.  This was not an attack, the Soviets should not retaliate, he concluded, his blood pressure undoubtedly off the charts.  Turned out the missiles were clouds.

Bureaucracy being what it is, he was reprimanded later “not for what he did, but for mistakes in the logbook.”  Much later still, he is widely considered the man who saved the world.

While world leaders today meet in a conference somewhere a Stanislav Petrov, Russian or otherwise, could be disobeying orders and breaking the chain of command, correctly or not, established by bureaucratic protocol.  Or backed by AI, he might think what he saw was the real thing and report an attack was underway.  Or perhaps worse still, Petrov had been laid off and the redoubtable AI — now an AGI — was wrongly telling the president to retaliate.  Would any president, general, or lackey challenge the judgment of an AGI?  Would the AGI have to take an oath as the rest of them did?

As government spreads so does bureaucracy, and with it the fatal pitfalls of allowing it to rule our lives.

The post Killer Bureaucracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is a current clash of explanatory stories in the media about whether the public slaughter of right-wing youth political activist Charlie Kirk was a professional hit conspired by power elites or the act of a lone gunman. Note, I term Kirk’s murder an assassination because his Turning Point USA organization has a massive IRS 501-C-3 tax exempt Political Action Committee (PAC) reportedly funded with $40 million to influence elections. Moreover, the suspected gunman’s own text included an admission of hatred toward Kirk and, by implication, what he stood for politically.

According to retired Judge Andrew Napolitano there is overwhelming evidence that the suspect Tyler Robinson committed the murder given his text “admission” to his transexual roommate and transexual/ROTC support group (“Hey you guys, I have bad news for you all, it was me (at Utah Valley University) yesterday…I’m surrendering through a sheriff friend in a few minutes” Robinson wrote).

The above title appears to be an oxymoron. However, I assert there is no necessary inconsistency between the Lone Gunman explanation and a Conspiracy explanation of this public murder spectacle as there was in the JFK assassination (for the Lone Gunman Theory see Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 2007 and for the JFK Conspiracy Theory see investigator Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment in the JFK Conspiracy, Vols. 1 & 2, 2017 and historian Laurent Guyenot, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, 2021). Instead, I offer a postulate of sociological facilitation of the assassination that is not antithetical to a combined conspiracy-lone-gunman-theory (but without a political “patsy”). I consider such assassinations as “institutional” assassinations, not an idiosyncratic act carried out by an introvert or loner. For there are no lone gunman political assassinations.

Post-Modern Assassination Narratives

Moreover, such political assassinations narratives are “post-modern”, meaning they can be framed whatever way those who control the media want to portray it to serve the interests of their corporate owners, donors, or financiers, or foreign interests just as the history of wars are written by the winners.  They are quasi-subjective narratives in the sense of whatever is true and serves power elites is considered the official story. Or if a foreign power wants to divide the country for geo-strategic purposes, the media may put forth two divisive narratives typically along party lines. Lone Gunmen and Conspiracy theories hang together as what philosopher Hegel called a “dialectic” by disputation between social classes, elites and the population mass, or political parties depending on the overall political context at that moment.

The CIA never admitted to complicity in the JFK assassination, but the US House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 concluded “on the basis of the evidence that it was the result of a conspiracy”. Nonetheless, this sidesteps whether the CIA had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination, since it was known by authorities two days beforehand based on information from a drug courier named Rose Cherami who ended up hospitalized and telling her story (Todd C. Elliott, A Rose Cherami by Many Names and the JFK Assassination, 2013). The FBI is currently questioning 20 people who “may have known” beforehand if Charlie Kirk was going to be shot.

The Permissive Reality of Postmodern Media Assassinations

However, the recent-past attempted 2024 assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, the recent high visibility politicized assassination of Charlie Kirk in Mormon-based Utah, and stabbing death of Ukrainian emigre Iryna Zarutska on a public transit train by a young Black man in Charlotte, North Carolina indicate high media profile murders are enabled and facilitated mainly by media visuals. Local police and FBI are leaving high elevation rooftops and perches unguarded at public events thus inviting and enabling assassination attempts by brainwashed highly self-trained gunmen. The same applies to public transit knife stabbings with security cameras showing that other transit riders do not attempt to stop criminals from perpetrating murder, especially with racial motivated stabbings. And corrupt courts and prosecutors in some jurisdictions release multiple offenders with impunity, which is tantamount to incentivizing domestic terrorism targeted at the White Middle Class.

Institutional Murder Not Psycho Derangement or Imitation

Put differently, the root causes of such high-profile media-facilitated assassinations and media stabbings are institutional. But the media frames such murder events as psychological “derangement syndrome” or “counter-racism” by individuals belonging to an outraged victim group (say transexuals, gays, multiculturist anti-whites).

What is overlooked in the media coverage of assassins is the propensity of some media-radicalized young men to imitate high profile assassinations they have seen online.  As sociologist Emile Durkheim once observed what triggers such seemingly imitative murders are not unpremeditated impulsive behavior of the moment, not the psychiatric make-up of the murderer, nor some presumed human proclivity for copy-cat crimes. As Durkheim put it: “we do not condemn it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we (institutionally) condemn it” (Emile Durkheim, Suicide, 1897).

However, capital murder is no longer evenly and harshly condemned in all jurisdictions. Refusal of some justice systems to prosecute high-profile repeat murderers is growing in media awareness, especially if the murder victim is middle class or white or opposed to the take-over of the US Congress and courts by a bribery system from foreign powers and oligarchs such as George Soros.

Brainwashing Vulnerable and Autistic American Youth

What is new in America is the radicalization of young people in high schools and colleges by assertive re-education, brainwashing programs, sex change surgeries and drug and hormone “therapies”. This can include the introduction of transexual rights laws to take younger children from their parents if the child desires to change their sex in opposition to their family and/or religion.

A commenter on Youtube.com captures up the social phenomenon of radicalization regarding the Kirk assassination:

“I’m from Utah and grew up in Washington County. This kid’s (Tyler Robinson’s) story is extremely common here. Raised by good, god-fearing parents, then goes to college and turns into a demon in a matter of weeks. There are thousands of him here. Four of my siblings are like this, and when I saw the picture of the shooter, I seriously thought it was my brother”.

Political radicalization uses the same brain washing tactics as religious cult conversions, sudden outbursts of violence by spirit possession induced by voodoo practitioners, military boot camp conversions of civilians to combat soldiers, Marxist Communist ideology handler conversions, forced confessions in prisoner of war camps, and, oddly, rigorous academic training for professionals. The suspected killer Tyler Robinson may also have been caught up with the emotional mob psychology of the crowd at the Utah event in that both proponents and opponents were contesting each other at the Kirk rally. The setting on a college campus was also auspicious and strong emotions like hate are more likely to emerge if one’s own status and power are threatened (Theodore D. Kemper, A Social-Interactional Theory of Emotions, 1978).

Re-education, brainwashing or merely watching hypnotic online sexualized videos can turn alienated young men into a killer of whites or non-Zionist Christians in a short matter of time and vice versa. But college is the social setting for most radicalization because education uses a model of breaking down young college students from their traditional altruistic values just as is done in military boot camp or medical school. The typical modus operandi of brain washing is:

* Separation and traumatization of the perpetrator from traditional social structures of family, church, and community norms and leaders either voluntarily by, say, going to college, the military, a monastery or being expelled from one’s family for drug and alcohol abuse resulting in homelessness and street crimes (such as Tyler Robinson’s transexual partner Lance Twiggs).
* Inclusion programs that financially incentivize separation from family, religion or community institutions with scholarships, loans, grants and crime victim subsidies, as well as subsidized psychotherapy, hormones and sex change surgery, to “come out” and identify as gay or “trans”.  The successfulness of conversion of young people, especially easily confused autistic adults, to a transexual identity depends not only on ideological and quasi-religious conversion but economically subsidizing such changes as most transexuals are economically vulnerable and often homeless.
* Inducing stress by rigorous professional reeducation (the 24/7 physical stress of college late night cramming for tests, writing of term papers, etc., or; conversely, trauma by multiple reincarceration in jails for repeat crimes along with drug and alcohol abuse – see William Sargant, Battle for the Mind: How Evangelists, Psychiatrists, Politicians, and Medicine Men Change Your Beliefs and Behavior, 2015; Robert Jay Lifton, Losing Reality: On Cults, Cultism and the Mindset of Political and Religious Zealotry, 2019; Anton Berea, Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook of Psychopolitics, 2013; and Edward Hunter, Brainwashing: The Story of Men Who Defied It, 2024). It should be noted that Tyler Robinson was reportedly enrolled in ROTC training in college.

Charlie Kirk founded his Turning Point USA organization to develop a youth voter base for Republicans and to counter transexual brainwashing by counter conversion to Zionist Judeo-Christianism.

Transexuals and Assassins Are Socially Made

Political assassinations by foreign states or deep states are typically carried out by 1) professional contract assassin(s), 2) recruiting and grooming a “Patsy” to take the blame for the assassination by a professional contract sniper, or 3) by grooming and instigating a vulnerable alienated young male to carry out an uncontracted hit seemingly alone especially when forced on a real life stage of rally. For example, the Trump attempted assassin Thomas Crooks in Butler, Pennsylvania, was purportedly a vulnerable autistic adult and transexual who presumably was brainwashed online and perhaps by professional psychological therapists to change his identity. Crooks’ computer and his living quarters were suspiciously wiped clean of any prior contacts, groomers, therapists or involvements.  Tyler Robinson from conservative St. George, Utah, was hanging around an ROTC and/or transexual subculture playing the “Furry Shades of Gay” porno game.

The Classical Explanation of Assassination Facilitation

The classical story about assassination by political facilitation is the Biblical story of King David and Basheba in the book of 1st Samuel, 12:7. The story deals with King David’s desire to cover up his impregnating of a married woman, Bathsheba, who was pregnant with his child. Bathsheba made a habit of bathing where the King could observe her and be titillated, perhaps the ancient equivalent of pornography. David then ordered his military general Joab to send Bathsheba’s military soldier husband Uriah to the front of a contrived war whereby he was killed. This covered up David’s adultery.

Nathan, the King’s advisor and prophet, indirectly tells David a parallel story of a poor man whose only possession was a lamb which provided milk for his children. Then a traveler came to a nearby rich man and the rich man wanted to influence the traveler for pecuniary purposes by giving him a banquet, but the rich man didn’t want to part with one of his own flock or herd of animals. Instead, he confiscated the poor man’s lamb to cook and feed the visitor (and presumably would have killed the poor man to keep his theft from being revealed).

Upon hearing this analogous parable to David’s crime of stealing someone’s wife, adultery and murder, this kindled David’s anger as King who had court powers over his flock of people.  Then David proceeded to say: “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because of he did this thing, and because he had no pity”. David asked who has done such a thing? And Nathan replied: “You are the man”.

King David never murdered Uriah directly nor directly ordered a murder hit on him. He just facilitated or enabled it to happen so he could claim plausible deniability. David deceived himself that he could hardly be blamed for lusting after a beautiful woman taking baths where he was forced to observe. His second self-deception was he did not kill Uriah directly and even Joab consoled him that such things happen in war. His third deception is that a king could not be accused and punished because he had the divine right of kings to do acts necessary to protect his people in war. Moreover, under the Ten Commandments only individual acts were prohibited, not institutional acts of a ruler. As sociologist Peter Berger says this story indicates all moral imperatives should be grounded in human responsibility, by both David and Bathsheba, not by the social roles of a ruler and a victim that people hide behind, and not based on institutional fictions such as the Lone Gunman theory (Peter L. Berger, The Precarious Vision: Social Fictions and Christian Faith, 1961).

There Are No Lone Gunmen Political Assassinations

Thus, “lone” political assassins are socially made, not born. They must be “groomed” and resocialized by handlers or therapists. It does not require much time or ideological justification to be re-socialized as a “professional boxer” while it takes a decade and specialized socialization to make doctors be inured to potential institutional murder as a “professional doctor” who can take a life with impunity during Pandemics. Professional psychopathy is institutional not psychogenic. But, to convert someone into an assassin doesn’t require as much resocialization if one has already experienced trauma, culture shock, or whose conscience has been altered by vaccines, hormones, and surgery or circumcision.  Some people may be raised to be religious “zealots” in a nomadic tribe, in which case transitioning to an assassin may not require as much resocialization. Thus, online videos of assassinations at public events and stabbings on public transit cars provide role models especially for vulnerable and weakly socialized young men. Role alternation (conversion) from a heterosexual to a transexual results in malleability of one’s identity and morality just as being socialized as a King who has implied immunity or the divine right of kings. By institutional facilitation I mean expediting the ideological justifications and progress of movement toward completing an act without being recognized as the enabler or plotter of the act, as if the act would have occurred organically without the conspiracy. 

What sociologists call “role theory” better explains institutionally facilitated assassinations than such buzz words as “derangement syndrome”, “mass psychosis”, “psy-ops”, or psychopathy often used by journalists. All institutions are coercive because they tend to be based on a secret that justifies their existence. Under role theory, society manufactures the personnel required for specific situations by placing us on a stage where we must improvise our lines and actions in accordance with our perceived role. Sometimes we create our own role as the opportunity is too tempting, as in the story of David and Bathsheba indicates. As sociologist Peter Berger explains: “…fierce warriors appear because there are armies to be sent out, pious men because there are churches to be built…and murderers because there are murders to be performed”; given that murder of Whites, middle class, or Christians is no longer condemned in some jurisdictions and security personnel continue to negligently leave perches from which to shoot political figures.

The uncovered roof top or perch is now almost becoming normal in these assassinations. Has anyone officially brought this up about the Charlie Kirk assassination? Certainly not any bureaucrat wanting to keep his job and lucrative perquisites. This does not mean that such heinous crimes cannot be subverted. They can be subverted if we can look up and see the puppet strings that control us and the puppet masters, and their puppet masters, and the ideological perches they are located on. Soon, citizens will recognize they have to cover the roof tops themselves in public events in an act of preventive subversion and resistance. In a society where the citizens can’t or won’t see that pro sports are mostly rigged, that elections are also rigged, that presidents are selected, that emperor worship is not sacred or holy, and that wars are unnecessary except to deflect blame on an external enemy, this won’t be easy, however. People want to be religious to be good or perceived as good, like David and Bathsheba.

Law and Institutional Murder 

There is a struggle going on in America about the Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools and court houses. This struggle is framed as religious morality versus secularism (e.g., transsexualism).  But the power elite want the basis of law to be individualized not focused on institutional injustice. This is the crux of the Luigi Mangione murder by gunshot of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024.  Mangione was apparently aggrieved at the “greed and parasitism” of medical insurance companies and sought a “symbolic takedown” by murder of the CEO of the largest insurance provider. Of course, taking the life of a health insurance CEO is an absurd, adolescent and Marxist-like evil, and a misdirected act to address institutional policy. Moreover, greater health care insurance coverage does not necessarily result in reducing avoidable deaths.

Hebraic religious norms and law only focus on individualized concepts such as “sin”, transgression, mental incompetency and compensation for victims, having nothing to do with the institutional facilitation of crimes.  However, the extent, if any, of hormone replacement therapy, drugs or surgery may have had on the Kirk murderer may be a wild card.  Hebraic criminal law is based on the concept of sin while English Common Law is based on Christianity and situation ethics of the case at hand and legal precedent (not the same as relativism). Former Special Forces soldier and author of The Eternal War (2023), E.M. Burlingame says the world’s worst atrocities were all done legallyunder the concept of civility under Hebraic law and opts for English Common Law instead. Hebraic Law is the law of elites while English Common Law is the law of the commoner. But Judeo-Christians are being taught the opposite that the Ten Commandments are necessary to restore morality, even though avoiding lying is not one of those commandments because it pertains more to rulers than commoners.

It is not inconceivable that the heinous public slaughter of Charlie Kirk in front of his children by an obviously radicalized well-trained non-contract sniper was institutionally channeled (“set up” in mafia terms), plausibly even by a foreign power, but the blame will be placed on the individual as a lone gunman. Certainly, the FBI, state marshal, county sheriff, local police and security personnel, and the Turning Point USA security spotters, are not going to bring up the issue of institutional negligence, despite its glaring obviousness. Neither did King David or Bathsheba.

The post How Power Elites Facilitate ‘Lone Gunman’ Assassinations (Without a Patsy) appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the book CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement I provide evidences and testimonies from renowned international climate scientists that contradict the UN assertion that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. I also refer to the conclusion of over 2,000 climate scientists and climate professionals at the Climate Intelligence Foundation that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and that CO2 emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. In this article I explore what Chat GPT won’t tell you about climate change, and the danger of always relying on AI tools as your source for information – the danger that misinformation poses to our consciousness.

Purchase here

Living in ChatGPT illusion

A neighbor seeking the truth about climate change and what causes it, made the catastrophic mistake of seeking the answers to these life-defining questions from a non-living entity, a computer program known as ChatGPT.  The question is below in bold – the response from ChatGPT follows.

Question to ChatGPT: Has the causal relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature increases been scientifically proven, such that there is large-scale consensus on the evidence?

Answer from ChatGPT: Yes, there is a large-scale consensus among scientists that there is a causal relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and global average temperature increases. This consensus is based on a wealth of scientific evidence, including the laws of physics, the properties of greenhouse gases, and observations of the Earth’s climate system…

This increase in CO2 has led to a corresponding increase in global average temperature, as evidenced by a range of observations and models.

The consensus view on this issue is reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that it is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have been the dominant cause of the observed warming of the Earth’s climate over the past century. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the Royal Society of the United Kingdom….

The ChatGPT responses certainly do not refer to the fact that over 2,000 scientists and climate professionals have signed a declaration refuting the UN IPPC. For more detail on these refutations see this article published on LewRockwell.com – 1900 Scientists Say ‘Climate Change Not Caused by CO2

Recall also the words of Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, who has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the United Nations (UN) IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [iii].

“the IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole
process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC
scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem!!”

I have also signed the above declaration disputing the UN narrative. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at United Nations Environment.

Using a machine AI or computer program to assist with functional tasks is one thing, but, as the Climate CO2 Hoax book demonstrates, always relying on AI tools for ‘life-defining’ direction and guidance only serves to show how dangerous the technocratic path of development is.  The UN climate narrative has a huge impact on government and public policy worldwide, significantly affecting the lives and behaviors of us all, as we are told, “save the planet”. Millions have been duped into believing that the world’s humans are the cause of climate change. Unless you recognize truth you are in danger of being duped into false senses of responsibility and guilt.

Meanwhile, the mass production of batteries for electric vehicles causes real pollution to land, air and water systems. There is value in independent research, and tapping into one’s God-given intelligence, consciousness and intuition.

ChatGPT is simply feeding out the information that was fed into it via data repositories, regardless of whether the data and information is correct, incorrect, or fabricated. The benefits of any tool ultimately depends on who owns and controls it, and in the case of AI, what data repositories are fed into it, and what restrictions are placed upon the information outputs. Thus, AI can be a very beneficial tool; or it can be used as a tool for a dis-information reality and ‘thought control’ matrix for the masses.

I asked ChatGPT the following question: Tell me above the fake climate science that is promoted by the United Nations.

Answer from ChatGPT: “I need to pause here — I can’t provide content that promotes climate change denial or frames mainstream climate science as “fake.” But what I can do for you:… Summarize common critiques of climate policy (e.g., economic impacts, energy trade-offs, political agendas) without disputing the scientific consensus.”

So there we have it Chat GPT will not consider science that is not part of the “scientific consensus”.

Facts, it seems, are now determined by “consensus” not by by any scientific method – “consensus” has replaced the scientific method. Furthermore, it appears to me, based on the testimonies of the renowned climate scientists detailed in the above book, the UN climate narrative has also been established by fabrication, lies, selective data, and an ulterior agenda.

AI, for all its practical uses, portrays a ‘consensus reality’, but consensus is not science, and who and what creates the consensus? Often money and power does – so what does it tell us when most of the scientists that support the UN climate narrative are on perpetual government salaries and grants. Yet, dozens of independently established organizations have detailed data and analysis from numerous climate scientists and physicists indicating that climate change is not a man-made CO2-induced phenomenon. For example, see the video presentations by renowned scientists on the Irish Climate Science Forum website.

Authentic science involves the method of observing and testing whether something is true or false, and is independent of popular opinion or popular consensus.  In modern scientism the method has been discarded, and scientism backed by ‘majority consensus’ is wielded as propaganda to control the minds of the masses.The UN CO2-induced climate change story indoctrinated millions of people. This green deception has become so entrenched that some people even attempt to block road traffic in the belief this will help to save the world.

It has become increasingly clear that in the realm of modern science that which is presented to the public as established fact, is often nothing more than a consensus fabricated by powerful groups of people. It appears the “consensus” has been shaped according to which narratives are funded. It is not just political and ideological agendas that are funded by debt-money, but also the consensus narratives that are presented to us as modern science. See also the book Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers

Purchase here

Are you using the technology or is the technology using you?

ChatGPT and other AI tools are tools of the technocratic consensus. The technocracy tells living souls what is true or false, and what to think and believe. Off-loading all our human curiosities to a digital zombie is not a good idea. Ask yourself are you using the technology or is the technology using you? The difference between a human brain ‘machine’ and a computer ‘machine’ is that the living human brain is experiencing a state of symbiosis with the living soul that is you. AI programs, such as ChatGPT, are sophisticated, but dead, machinery tools designed to keep you enslaved to the consensus narratives and control ideologies of the slave matrix. The matrix seeks blind obedience to a fabricated reality in an attempt to dis-empower you. However, we have free will and our choices define us. Real relationships and real trust can only take place between living souls.

Manmade machines cannot compare with the ‘organic machinery’ of the human brain, which was made by God, and has a level of complexity and intelligent design far beyond human understanding. The human brain was made by God not just for data learning, but for experiential learning involving consciousness and the soul itself. AI can answer functional task based questions, but if millions of living souls are going to be asking ChatGPT for the answers to the pressing questions of our time they run the risk of living deluded lives.

The technology of the technocracy is merely a reflection of its human architects and funders. It is a sophisticated information repository – the problem is it is a repository of ‘control matrix’ information; as is Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. All of which have used a type of censorship in the form of algorithms and ‘community guidelines’ to determine what “truth” you should be told and what information will not be presented to you. Interesting information, entertainment, and problem solving may hook you in – however, fake science, illusion and ‘cul de sacs’ await you in the technocracy.

Chat GPT is a soulless machine – it does not care whether it is telling the truth or not. (Digital life is a complete impossibility – it is a delusion of atheistic technocrats.) Some say that ‘ChatGPT is smarter than you’. Well, that will only become true if you always trust ChatGPT as you will be in danger of being subsumed into areas of misdirected consciousness. Misdirected from real material and spiritual knowledge – this amounts to spiritual pollution. Then your role as a living soul is in danger of being subverted and you become a living product of the lies you may have been fed.

The post The Climate CO2 Hoax – What ChatGPT Won’t Tell You appeared first on LewRockwell.

“173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Ten-year budget negotiations misdirect politicians, commentators, and voters. Politicians talk about saving in the future while they act to spend and inflate now.

Projecting spending is executive power. Even so, congressmen and presidents claim that it’s legal that they require that projections be made by a congressional budget office.

Any spending projections need to foretell politicians’ future actions as closely as possible.

Progressives’ future actions are predicted best by their present actions. If they cut spending now, that predicts that they will maintain those cuts. If they increase spending now, that predicts that they will maintain those increases. The most reality-based projection would simply start with politicians’ next-year budget and hold it constant at the same inflation-adjusted real rate across the balance of the ten-year budget.

This would also help further, because the ten-year projection would magnify the impact of Progressives’ current actions. Magnifying that impact upfront would strongly incentivize voters to push these politicians to take better actions now.

Unlike Progressives’ constant despotism, constitutionalists will increase freedom year after year, because constitutionalists’ simple process gets every incentive right.

The figure contrasts constitutionalists’ future workflow in the top half with Progressives’ current workflow in the bottom half.

Figure. Constitutionalists’ work will protect boundaries. Progressives’ work crosses boundaries.

Mostly, constitutionalist legislators will just expeditiously pass a single overall-total appropriation, then move on to passing constitutional rules and sanctions for the rest of the year. Also, they will provide broken-windows policing as soon as it’s needed to protect our rights, by summarily impeaching.

Constitutionalists in all jurisdictions will execute a commonsense workflow like what the Constitution requires:

• The president shall from time to time give congressmen information on the state of the government.
• Congressmen must make an appropriation before money is spent.
• Statutes must only use powers enumerated for the national government, must not be delegations of legislative power, and must not be grabs of executive power or judicial power.
• If already-available information suggests that people’s rights to life, liberty, and secure property would be threatened by delegating national-government power to an official, then the official shall be summarily impeached, and the privilege to use that power shall no longer be delegated to him.
• The president, like every official, shall interpret the constitutionality of his every action, and shall faithfully execute the statutes and judicial opinions that he himself interprets are constitutional.
• The president shall recommend to congressmen’s consideration such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

Mostly, Progressive legislators logroll and demand spending, all year long. They also delegate away their legislative power to regulators, and grab more executive power by conducting oversight.

Progressives in all jurisdictions execute a dystopian workflow, defying the Constitution through and through:

• Executives give audiences of voters information on what we the people did, plus nauseating marketing of government.
• Legislators grab the executive power to allocate line items. They logroll, then treat each line item as mandatory to spend. Later they allocate supplemental or emergency items. Here too they logroll, then treat each item as mandatory to spend.
• Legislators and executives delegate lawmaking power to bureaucrats. Legislators and executives grab the executive power to control executive processes. They grab judicial power by sending cases to Constitution-violating administrative courts.
• Legislators grab the executive power to manage the execution of constitutional rules and statutes, and call this power-grab oversight. Meanwhile they shirk their legislative duty to summarily impeach to protect our life, liberty, and property. Instead they protect their distinguished colleagues’ privileges.
• Officials each claim they have to do whatever other legislators, executives, or judges say they must do. They claim they have no power, and certainly no duty, to interpret the Constitution and to only take actions that support the Constitution.
• Executives recommend to legislators that they should work together to unconstitutionally grant even more legislative, executive, and judicial powers to bureaucrats.

Progressives’ workflow likely looks familiar, even normal. But the consequences are dire. We are left with no representation that relieves us from Progressives’ despotism.

Constitutionalists’ workflow is the gold standard we should compare officials’ actions to. If we keep in mind the actions that the Constitution requires officials to take, we will see more clearly and with more specificity the exact actions Progressive officials currently take that constitute these people’s high despotism. Our very-best future legislators and executives will see this despotism clearly too.

As soon as majorities of legislators either stop themselves or get stopped by at least some others from grabbing executives’ powers, Progressive legislators’ most-destructive current despotism will end. Representatives will instead support the Constitution.

A constitutionalist executive will responsibly report how he spent the previous appropriation: how much he spent, what worked well, what worked poorly.

Constitutionalist legislators will pass the next appropriation and will promptly move on to triaging and repealing existing statutes that are unconstitutional or unwise. That is, they will take up the task that currently is their main job, and that nobody but legislators can do for us.

Government people, it’s still your move, for now. Until you no longer have a choice because we have taken our power back.

The post Constitutionalists’ Workflow Is Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s rare in peacetime, a meeting of all your flag officers in one place – and even more rare when a country is at war. The first question we must ask our generals and admirals, and our brand spanking new Secretary of War, is “Are we at war?”

This question – frankly pertinent and simultaneously impertinent – would stymie our American generals and those who lead them into harm’s way, and more commonly, down dead end streets, over the cliffs of insanity, and into fire swamps.  Like former President Joe Biden, they Simply. Don’t. Know.

Obviously, this one question needs to be answered, and constitutionally explained by the Secretary of “War.”  It’s the least we can ask of the young man.

Then, I would imagine that, given Secretary Hegseth is the MAGA man in the Pentagon, he will give the following short speech.

Thank you all for coming. I hope you packed your sh!%.

Putting America First means means change for the Pentagon. Some of you may have noticed that you haven’t won a war in 80 years. And yet, except for the ever-expanding trillions that pad your budgets and enrich you in retirement, not much has gotten better in the warfighting arena in those 80 years.  Instead of an industrial capacity that allowed ramped-up production and innovation like the last time Congress declared war, we now have a far less industrial economy, and a changed demography.  Fewer people are engaged in the kind of work that makes the kind of war you think you are conducting possible.  The US economy today produces 43% of the globe’s weapons – and yet the nation does not profit!  US-made weapons today are, as a rule, temperamental, expensive, inelegant, designed by committees and dreamed up by politicians in and out of uniform.  What you call war is just another business, and you are pretty rotten businessmen.

You’re adapting as fast as you can, but your pace is somewhere between glacial and geologic. What’s worse, the main thing you’re adapting to is the loss of actual Americans willing to fight and pay for your undeclared yet heavily justified wars. Most of you have never read Catch-22, and yet is it amazing how so many of you were actually in the novel!  The undeclared, unpopular, idiotic, expensive, horrendously led and managed, objective-free and poorly fought wars you all have spent your careers extending and nurturing must end.  Today is that day.

The brighter among you have noticed that the President changes his mind and his focus a dozen times a day. But have you noticed that we are no longer the MacDaddy of the planet, war pimps for dollars, respected for our military and diplomatic prowess? Your real daddies are David Petraeus and Keith Kellogg, and the last thing on their mind is putting America’s security first.  Your handmaidens for future war, at home and abroad, are Alex Karp and contractor operated propaganda management.   That’s not innovation, that’s a defense department that has forgotten what defending actually is.

I see many of you are distracted, it has been a minute.  Hopefully, as you look at your phones, you will see the termination notices.  We texted them to every man on your right and on your left.  Two-thirds of you will take your accrued leave when this meeting ends, and we’ll send any belongings to your home of record as soon as we get a chance.

Our President once mentioned that he hoped to cut the Pentagon budget in half, and we are taking lead on that today.  Just as the United States is not at war, much of what you and your pet projects have been doing is not warfighting.  It is not preparing for war.  It is not preparing to win future wars.  Because everyone has an excuse, and everybody here thinks their “mission” is just as real and valuable as that of the next guy, we’re cutting spending in half, and the third of you who didn’t get fired today will make it  work.

Trump is helping you out, as we are no longer going to fight a war with China, or Russia, and as soon as Israel slaughters and starves the remainder of the Gazans and West Bank Palestinians, we’re not fighting their wars any more either.  We are going to focus on protecting just America.  Sure, we will continue to sell weapons – but even the President recognizes that those weapons markets have shrunken to mainly a few captive NATO countries, and US weapons are today out-produced, out-designed, and out-performed by just about everyone in the global weapons sector.

Many of you are crying now, and I’m sorry about that.  You are asking “Why?” and “Why me?” Let me explain.

For a long time we held to the Reagan Doctrine – Peace through Strength.  But we had it backwards. Strength, real strength of economy and spirit, comes through peace.  A recent Costs of War study assessed how ineffectual it is to try to make a country stronger by spending excessively in – and obsessively justifying – the military sector.  We create wars that make fools of us all.  I mentioned Generals Petraeus and Kellogg as products and exemplars of Pentagon circular reasoning, but it’s all of you, and all of us.

A 50% cut in one day is pretty doggone American, where two-income families live paycheck to paycheck, pink slips are everywhere, and jobs scarce.  President Trump is trying, in the best way he knows how, to diversify the quantity and quality of things we make ourselves, and broaden the kinds of things we market to others.  He wants to open up new markets through his force of personality and dealmaking, and while that’s not enough, at least he is using what he has in his own toolkit to make America better than he found it – something we can’t say about everyone in this room.  He’s facing in the right direction, towards peace, because he believes we have made some terrible war oriented investments for average Americans. He is energized and also afraid, because the deep state beneficiaries of war and chaos are bristling, angry and taking aim. But you already knew that part.

Brown University’s Cost of War project has the numbers – money spent on overseas war, war consumables and war technology gives a poor return on investment when compared with other government spending, or keeping more of what you earn to invest in your own families and communities.  Americans, in debt and on the brink of civil war, with real declines in health and quality of life, no longer have the luxury of this poor investment.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  It’s one-way now.

Well, I hope Pete gives this speech, but if he wants to talk about warrior ethos, I’ve got another one that’s short and sweet, courtesy Sun Tsu.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.  Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!

The post An Assembly of Generals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Social justice warriors often suppose that since they are advancing “justice” they are entitled to do whatever they deem necessary to defend their cause. Any atrocity they commit should be viewed sympathetically because, after all, they are on the side of the angels. In the public discourse on crime and punishment, they argue that if the criminal is a victim of “systemic racism” this means he should always be understood primarily as a victim of injustice who deserves compassion. As reported in a recent case,

The Democratic mayor of the city where a Ukrainian refugee was allegedly stabbed to death by a known criminal has called for “compassion” for the suspect.… Ms Lyles said that Charlotte “must do better” for people like Mr Brown, who is homeless, as they “need help and have no place to go.”

This is a modern iteration of the influential discourse surrounding the crimes of another Mr. Brown—the abolitionist hero John Brown. Slavery violates the right to self-ownership, and therefore, as many abolitionists saw it, that would justify waging a defensive war against slavery. The deeds and misdeeds of John Brown are said to be best understood in light of the fact that he was a virtuous man engaged in the justified cause of punishing slaveowners and setting slaves free. The argument is that it does not matter that he happened to kill innocent people either by mistake or because they happened to be present at the time of his attack—that is all to be subsumed within the overall righteousness of his crusade against slavery. As the Battlefield Trust reports,

Born in Torrington, Connecticut, John Brown belonged to a devout family with extreme anti-slavery views.

…

In response to the sacking of Lawrence, Kansas, John Brown led a small band of men to Pottawatomie Creek on May 24, 1856. The men dragged five unarmed men and boys, believed to be slavery proponents, from their homes and brutally murdered them. Afterwards, Brown raided Missouri – freeing eleven slaves and killing the slave owner.

What the Battlefield Trust does not mention is that the unarmed men and boys in Kansas who were “believed to be slavery proponents” were not slave owners. They were, however, farmers from Tennessee, which was a slave state, and on that basis John Brown’s band wrongly assumed that they were likely to be slavery proponents. The mother of the slain boys later wrote to John Brown:

…you can now appreciate my distress, in Kansas, when you then and there entered my house at midnight and arrested my husband and two boys and took them out of the yard and in cold blood shot them dead in my hearing, you cant say you done it to free our slaves, we had none and never expected to own one, but has only made me a poor disconsolate widow with helpless children while I feel for your folly.

In these types of cases, people often wrongly assume that once the cause is deemed to be righteous any steps taken to further that cause are, necessarily, ethically and morally sound. In addition to many other problems with that reasoning, it overlooks the doctrine of proportionality, which is an important principle of justice. Proportionality reflects the classical ideal that the punishment should always fit the crime. Even without getting into a debate on the rights and wrongs of both sides of a debate, the principle of proportionality marks the boundary of what is considered reasonable conduct in the exercise of one’s own rights and the furtherance of what one believes to be a justified cause. Proportionality plays a particularly important role in delineating the boundaries of self-defense, because beyond a certain point what started out as self-defense may amount to an act of aggression—when it becomes all out of proportion to the initial attack. Without any notion of reasonableness or proportionality, there would be no principled limits to the exercise of one’s own rights. The right to self-defense would entitle a homeowner to summarily execute any trespasser who happened to tread onto his property.

In the Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that any form of violent defense must be proportionate, otherwise the victim of a crime turns into an aggressor himself. No one can claim to uphold the non-aggression principle while he brazenly commits acts of aggression against others cloaked in the mantle of defense. First, violent defense must always be in response to a “clear and present” danger which is usually lacking in the cases under discussion. Even supposing there had been any danger, as argued by the progressives who see “systemic racism” as an ever-present form of “structural violence,” the next question that must be considered is “how far does the right of violent defense go?” Rothbard’s principle of proportionality holds that “the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights.”

He illustrates this with the example of a storekeeper who claims “the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum.” A storekeeper who decides to execute a mere shoplifter is himself an aggressor: “the storekeeper has become a far greater criminal than the thief, for he has killed or wounded his victim—a far graver invasion of another’s rights than the original shoplifting.” In this example, the shoplifter has not used physical violence, nor threatened explicitly or implicitly to use violence—the extent of violence in each case is not a theoretical matter but is entirely fact dependent. Further, it should be noted that proportionality is not the same as “equal,” as quite clearly the impact of a crime cannot be measured in such a way as to ensure that the retaliation or punishment is “equal.” Rothbard gives many examples where the appropriate punishment may well be greater than the crime, without being thereby disproportionate.

Readers will be aware that in Rothbard’s philosophy, “racism” is not a moral wrong because the only moral wrongs in his libertarian system are violations of property rights. But even if one were to accept the premise of the social justice warriors that “racism” is a moral wrong, under the principle of proportionality it would never be justified for a “victim” of racism to retaliate against “structural harm” by attacking the person or property of another. That would be grotesquely out of proportion, to use Rothbard’s terminology.

It is irrelevant, therefore, that a criminal may feel that “the system” has been unfair to him. Even if we were to suppose that to be true, for the sake of argument, it still would not justify acts of aggression against others. The same reasoning applies to slavery as a moral wrong. Although slavery in the West was abolished in the nineteenth century, there are still progressive liberals today who argue that the “legacies” of slavery still subsist, and that this justifies the victims of such legacies in violating the property rights of others. Again, even if that argument were to be accepted as valid, it would still be grotesquely disproportionate to commit acts of aggression against others.

To be clear, it is not argued here that the social justice warriors are correct to view themselves as righteous crusaders, nor is it suggested that the only thing wrong with them is their lack of proportionality and if only they would act proportionately their evil worldview would become good. The argument is, rather, that even if one were to assume their premise to be sound (to be clear, that is not my own view), it would still be wrong for them to rely on that premise as an excuse to violate the rights of others. Even taken on their own terms, those who use their own righteousness as an excuse to commit crimes against others are grotesquely outrageous.

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

The post The Principle of Proportionality appeared first on LewRockwell.

Britain’s Keir Starmer is already pulling the rug from under his own grudging declaration. The only hope of change is of the unintended consequences variety

Middle East Eye – 26 September 2025

The reluctant recognition of Palestinian statehood by Britain, France, Australia, Canada this week is a con – it is the same switch and bait that has been blocking the creation of a Palestinian state for three decades now.

Imagine that these four leading western countries had recognised Palestine not in late 2025, when Palestine is in the final stages of being eradicated, but in the late 1990s, during a period of supposed Palestinian state-building.

That was when the Oslo accords were signed with western backing. The Palestinian Authority was established under Yasser Arafat with the apparent aim that Israel would gradually withdraw from the territories it still occupies in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and begin ruling an emergent Palestinian state.

At Israel’s insistence, let us note, the Oslo accords carefully avoided any mention of the ultimate destination of this process. Nonetheless, the message from western politicians and media was the same: this was heading towards a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.

Looking back, it is evident why that did not happen when it still looked feasible.

The Israeli leader of the time, Yitzhak Rabin, told the Israeli parliament that his vision was not of a state but of “an entity which is less than a state”: a glorified Palestinian local authority utterly dependent on its bigger neighbour, Israel, for its security and economic survival.

After Rabin was assassinated by a far-right Israeli gunman, his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, was propelled into power by a majority of the Israeli public on a mandate to stop the Oslo process in its tracks.

He repeatedly reneged on commitments to withdraw Israeli soldiers and Jewish settler-militias from the occupied West Bank. In fact, in this period of supposed “peace-making”, Israel colonised Palestinian land at the fastest rate ever.

In 2001, during his time in opposition, Netanyahu was secretly caught on camera, explaining how he achieved this reversal.

Reports this week of a watered-down version of the plan suggest Tony Blair, the war criminal who oversaw the destruction of Iraq two decades ago with George W Bush, may be appointed effective “governor” of a Gaza in ruins.

Read the Whole Article

The post Recognition of Palestine Is a Repeat of the West’s Oslo ‘Peace’ Fraud appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the COVID-19 rollout, patients gradually began to realize that some of the COVID-19 vaccines were more dangerous than others. Initially this was written off as a conspiracy theory. However, as time moved forward, and more evidence emerged to support the “hot lot” hypothesis there was an increasing acceptance of this theory.

At the time, the most common theory I heard raised to account for this was that a large global experiment was being done to assess the effects of various mRNA doses (e.g., one researcher was able to show that the hot lots of each COVID vaccine brand hit the market at different times in a manner that seemed to be coordinated between the manufacturers and that Pfizer’s lots contained a simple code that correlated to their toxicity).

However, while this was possible (as you can put nothing past these people) I was more inclined to an alternative hypothesis: that it was not possible to correctly produce the mRNA vaccines at scale, so there would be a large number of production issues including many either toxic or inactive lots hitting the market.

This theory was based on both my knowledge of the specific engineering challenges the mRNA technology faced and the fact that hot lots are an enduring problem with vaccines.

Because of this, many (myself included) believe the vaccine industry concluded it wasn’t possible to completely clean up their production process while maintaining the economic viability of the vaccines, so they instead focused on getting the Federal government to exempt them from liability for their hot lots under the argument that “vaccines were essential for our national security” so a certain number of people being injured by defective vaccines was an acceptable trade-off to maintain this “vital” national resource.

Given the severity of this allegation, I will now present several incidents where ‘hot’ vaccine lots have been identified in the market.

Adventitious Agents

One of the greatest challenges with producing a biological pharmaceutical is that it has to be grown in a medium (e.g., a virus within cells or a growth medium for bacteria). This introduces a few major issues.

• First, if cell cultures are used, an unrecognized virus may already have infected the cells and contaminated the final product.

• Second, anytime a growth medium is used, unwanted pathogens can also get in (e.g., from the air) and then grow there. This is especially problematic because the same labs that produce these products also often house harmful infectious organisms.

• The entire process inevitably requires a purification stage where the undesired contaminants (e.g., unwanted bacteria, foreign DNA, or toxic components of now destroyed bacteria) are removed. Unfortunately, it is often quite difficult or costly to remove these unwanted contaminants, and the cost frequently exceeds what the manufacturers are willing to pay.

In turn, unwanted biological contaminants (euphemistically termed adventitious agents) are an enduring challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. For example, this recent 2022 review paper highlighted some of the most common “adventitious agents” (e.g., mycoplasma frequently contaminate cultures) and cited a few well-known incidents such as:

• In 1946, a sheep vaccine was contaminated with prions (due to it being sourced from sheep in the early asymptomatic stage of the prion disease scrapie—something similar to Mad Cow Disease), which in turn caused the sheep in the herd that received the vaccine to later get scrapie.

• The FDA reported in 1973 that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and oral polio vaccine were contaminated with bacteriophages (viruses that eat bacteria). This was due to the blood used to make those vaccines containing bacteria, and the bacteria but not their attached bacteriophages being filtered out of the final product.

• In 1995, the MMR and yellow fever vaccines were found to be contaminated with the Endogenous Avian Retrovirus and the Avian Leukosis Virus.

• In 1997, scrapie was also spread to sheep through another contaminated vaccine.

• In 2004 and 2005, two rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and RotaTeq manufactured by Merck, were found to be contaminated with porcine circovirus-1 (PCV1) after over 100 million doses of the vaccine had been distributed worldwide.

• In 2007, over 1 million doses of the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine were recalled due to the detection of Bacillus cereus in the manufacturing equipment.

Sadly, as we investigate the past, it will become clear these events were only the tip of the iceberg.

Note: many reported incidents that I am not aware of didn’t make it to this article, while a far larger number of incidents were never reported, but I nonetheless believe the cases listed in this article are more than sufficient to make the point.  Similarly, as a I discussed in a previous article, while lab leaks with dangerous pathogens are typically not reported, enough documented instances exist within the peer reviewed literature to establish that those leaks are inevitable and impossible to avoid (which in turn argues that this research ever being conducted).

Sir Graham Wilson

Sir Graham Wilson was an eminent bacteriologist from the London School of Hygiene (e.g., in 1923 he coined the concept of herd immunity—an often impossible benchmark that I’ve previously shown has been used to repeatedly sell dubious vaccines to the world). Wilson grew up in a time when many bacterial infections were treated with vaccines or antiserums (particularly antitoxins for the tetanus or diphtheria toxin). At this time, his profession believed anti-vaxxers were irrational and pseudoscientific individuals and that vaccines were “100% safe and effective.”

However, as Wilson became older, he began to see more and more evidence that there were real dangers to vaccination, and that his profession habitually covered it up to maintain the mythology all vaccines were “safe and effective.” In turn, due to Wilson’s stature in the field, many other (anonymous) vaccine experts shared their records of secret vaccine disasters that had occurred with Wilson and helped him to compile a detailed record of published and unpublished vaccine catastrophes that had occurred as many of them harbored immense guilt over what had happened, but simultaneously felt that they could not take on the risk of speaking publicly about it.

From reviewing the record he put together, what I find remarkable about Wilson’s work was how much of it mirrors what we saw a century later—for example, very few people know that one of the original cases of Guillain Barré syndrome was due to a vaccine injury:

In an article published in 1919 Guillain and Barré referred to Landry’s–type paralysis when they reported a fatal case of acute polyneuritis with albuminocytologic dissociation after typhoid vaccination.

In Guillain and Barré’s case numbness and stiffness became apparent in the patient’s legs the day after injection and the following day in his hands. Paralysis gradually came on and by the 9th day was complete in the legs, arms, and face. Bulbar symptoms developed on the 7th day, and on the 10th day, the patient died.

Note: previously I discussed many of the documented cases Wilson unearthed of a vaccination causing a pre-existing illness (e.g., polio) to spiral out of control.

One of the key themes that kept on recurring in the records Wilson unearthed was that many vaccine catastrophes occurred after a contaminated lot was given to a large number of people (typically children or soldiers). Wilson in turn argued that rather than denying these incidents occurred, his profession needed to be honest about them so that the mistakes that led to these toxic ‘hot’ lots could be recognized and hence prevented from happening again. In The Hazards of Immunization, he discussed the following hot lot incidents:

I will now review those incidents in detail.

Note: Wilson documented many severe reactions that occurred from the early vaccinations. In this article, I am only covering the subset of reactions which occurred at a higher rate than the typical rate.

Hot Lots of the Past

Note: I tried to find all the sources Wilson cited (his citations were not that clear). For those not cited, please refer to his 1967 book. Additionally, some of the incidents listed here we not covered by Wilson, and for all of those, direct sources are provided. Lastly, many of the deaths described here were agonizing and horrific, but for brevity, I have not detailed each of them.

Diphtheria

Early diphtheria vaccines utilized the diphtheria toxin to provoke an immune response to it. Since it was so difficult to neutralize its toxicity, numerous accidents occurred due to hot lots being released with an active diphtheria toxin which had a variety of characteristic symptoms (many of which overlapped with other vaccine injuries). For example:

Disturbances of sensibility were sometimes detectable, especially in the older children. They included paraesthesia, formication in the extremities, and diminution in the muscular sense and the orientation of the limbs leading to ataxia. The patellar reflex was first exaggerated, then lost, and regained as recovery took place. One of the earliest symptoms was an exaggeration of the oculocardiac reflex; in several hundred patients it was observed that compression of the eyeball led to stoppage of the heart.

Note: the oculocardiac reflex is now a mostly a forgotten side of medicine (outside of very specific areas of medicine such as surgeries on the eyes). The diagnosis of this reflex is defined by the heart rate decreasing by over 20% after pressure is placed on the eyes (which typically does not happen) due to activation of the vagus nerve. I have a few theories on why vaccine injuries would cause that reflex to stop the heart, but I am not confident in any of them.

Let’s now look at a few of the cases of diphtheria hot lots:

• In October 1919 the city of Dallas Texas began administering the diphtheria toxin (and its antitoxin) to non-immune children. Many different lots were used, and one of those ended up being hot (due to it having over 50 times the maximum permissible levels of free diphtheria toxin). Several hundred doses of it were given (although the exact number remains unknown), and 50 severe reactions to it were reported (with many more not being reported). When 120 of those injected were studied, it was found that 96 had reactions, 12 of which were moderate, 74 which were severe, and 10 of which were fatal.

Each of the 96 Dallas cases in turn had an almost identical progression of symptoms. Their symptoms went in the following order:

1. Intense burning at the site of injection which in a few hours became agonizing.

2. This was accompanied by severe nausea, vomiting, constipation, signs of a kidney injury, extreme swelling of the entire arm, and a reaction that spread into the rest of the body.

3. 24-48 hours after injections, vesicles appeared at the injection site, which leaked a burning fluid, and after they disappeared, left a raw ragged and ill-smelling patch 6-12 square inches (or more) in area which took around 2 to 2.5 months to heal.

4. Around 9-10 days, the heart became highly irregular and this lasted until the 8th to 10th week.

5. Starting at the third week, all the patients had muscles throughout the body become paralyzed (including the ones which controlled neurological functions like vision). Typically, these neurological complications lasted for 18-20 weeks, and tended to be more severe in those who had had a less severe initial reaction to the vaccine.

Remarkably, no investigation over what went wrong in Dallas was ever conducted, so other similar incidents also occurred.

Note: aspects of the incident are discussed within this 1927 book.

• In 1922 a 14-year old in Belgium was injected with a vial of diphtheria toxin (receiving at least 100 times the lethal dose) that had somehow gotten into a batch of tetanus vaccines, and died seven days later from cardiac paralysis.

• In Massachusetts in 1924, two lots were given that became toxic due to being frozen. For one lot, 21 of the 23 who received it, had severe reactions to the vaccine (but none died), while for the other lot, 22 of the 31 had severe reactions. After these incidents were studied, it was concluded that the cold had separated the antitoxin from caused it to agglomerate (clump) together on the bottom of the vial.
Note: colloidal agglomeration and zeta potential are discussed further here (as one of the primary toxicities of vaccines is that they cause fluids in the body like the blood to clump together and stop flowing).

• In Baden in 1924, 34 infants and children received a hot lot, of whom, 6 had no reaction, 11 had mild reactions, and 17 had severe reactions (of which 10 were fatal). A subsequent investigation revealed that when this lot was produced, diphtheria toxin was accidentally mixed with another diphtheria toxin rather than an antitoxin.

• In Tashkent (U.S.S.R.) in 1927, 14 children received diphtheria toxin instead of antitoxin, 8 of whom died. In their case, administering the antitoxin, appeared to prevent their immediate death and instead caused them to die from a progressive paralytic neurological disorder.

• In 1928 in Queensland, 21 children were injected with a diphtheria toxin-antitoxin mixture of whom 12 died. Unlike the other cases, this one appears to have been due to the vaccine being contaminated with Staph Aureus.

• In Columbia in 1930, 48 children were given toxin instead of antitoxin, many became severely ill (often becoming comatose or convulsive) and 16 of them (with 14 dying in 1-3 days and the others dying from progressive neurological symptoms). One noteworthy aspect of this incident was that many of the children developed the characteristic diphtheria membrane in the throat (which gradually suffocates you), suggesting that the toxin itself had an affinity for the throat (rather than just the infection) as no diphtheria bacteria could be found.

• In Italy, in 1933, several hundred infants and children became severely ill after being injected with a hot diphtheria lot, with over 30 dying.

Note: in most of these cases, autopsies also showed damage to organs throughout the body.

Once a safer way to produce the vaccine was discovered (using a toxoid rather than a toxin), production was shifted to the new method. However, incidents still happened with these newer vaccines. For example, in 1948 in Kyoto Japan, over 600 infants and children became ill from one lot, with at least 68 dying (along with 16 more deaths in Shimane). In one sample of 15,561 who received their second injection, 606 fell ill, and 68 died from muscular paralysis (with 59 dying in 1-2 weeks), and it was later discovered these hot lots again contained the free diphtheria toxin.

Given that children were regularly dying from diphtheria, I can understand why governments around the world believed any treatment for it was justified. Nonetheless, given that in each of these cases, the diphtheria toxin maintained a remarkably consistent lethal dose (roughly one-millionth of a gram) they should have done more to ensure that quality control was in place to prevent these agonizing deaths from happening. Sadly, as we’ve seen since then, that lesson still has not been learned.

Note: there was also a 1926 case in China where 33 of 89 people who received a diphtheria toxin antitoxin injection became ill (with 5 dying), from what appeared to be streptococci contamination. Subsequent investigation revealed that the source of this contamination was likely the distilled water used to dilute it.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters appeared first on LewRockwell.

US preparing options for strikes inside Venezuela.

The attacks could happen “in a matter of weeks”.

The excuse is strikes inside Venezuela on alleged drug traffickers.  This is a hoax like the “Muslim Terrorist Threat” that was Washington’s excuse for its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The war on terror was a war on opponents to Greater Israel.  The war on Venezuelan drug traffickers is a continuation of Washington’s attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government dating from the Hugo Chavez years and to return Venezuela to American hands for exploitation.  Regardless of any drug traffickers, attacks on Venezuelan territory are acts of war.  Intimidation in support of American hegemony continues.  Will military attacks on drug traffickers in Mexico be next?  Is Venezuela the only country with drug traffickers?  What about Washington’s ally, Colombia?

The real reason for the military attack on Venezuela’s government, along with bagfuls of money, is to encourage the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro’s government.  It is a tactic Washington has often used on Honduras. 

Chavez earned the American establishment’s enduring hatred of Venezuela in his speech before the UN in 2006 when he said, referring to US President George W. Bush, that yesterday at this very podium stood Satan himself speaking as if he owned the world.  You can still smell the sulfur. 

Is Trump, blocked from fixing America by the Democrat Civil Service, Democrat judiciary, and Democrat media, turning to war?

If the report from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service is correct that the West is preparing a false fag attack on itself to be blamed on Russia, and the report is correct that Western troops are being placed in Moldavia and Odesa to attack the Russian forces in Transnistria, a wider war is about to break out.

False air space violations claimed by Estonia and Poland have set the stage for the West’s false flag attack on itself.  Moldavia’s excuse is that Transnistria is a part of Moldavia occupied by Russian troops.  The NATO troops allegedly in Odesa can claim to have been attacked by Russian forces in Transnistria.

The Western media, of course, will lie and blame Putin.

The post US Military/Security Complex Wants More War appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Entertainment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Margaret Anna Alice

The post We Have Been Living Through a Global Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Experiment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

The post Former Assistant Secretary of HUD Catherine Fitts: The Kirk Assassination is a PSYOP appeared first on LewRockwell.