Lew Rockwell Institute

(Click on above title)

Guests examined the life and career of journalist H. L. Mencken. He became a reporter for the Baltimore Morning Herald and later joined the Baltimore Sun. He eventually became one of the most influential voices in American literature and was often critical of what he perceived as American weaknesses. He often railed against pretension, provincialism, prudery, organized religion, and the Middle Class. By the 1930s his opinions became increasingly conservative and sometimes reactionary. In The American Language, which was revised several times, he chronicled American expressions and idioms. The program was telecast from Union Square in Baltimore, the site of his family home.

The post C-SPAN: Fascinating Program on the Writings of H. L. Mencken appeared first on LewRockwell.

Emperor Trump just issued an executive order against flag burning. This will appeal to Christian Nationalists and “God and Country” Christians who adore Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” I will not be writing anything about this because I already have—back in 2020: “Donald Trump, Flag Burning, and the First Amendment.”

The post Trump Is Unhinged appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Burn A Flag…Go To Jail? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Emanuel Pastreich

The post “The Left is not weak; The left is wrong” appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Genocide Called World War I

The Life & Legend of Cecil Rhodes

Steve Sailer’s article posted on LRC, “Carroll Quigley’s Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group,” is an excellent summary of the important influence in world history played by the imperialist Cecil Rhodes and his Anglosphere heirs. In the Preface to his book, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, Quigley noted:

I have been told that the story I relate here would be better left untold, since it would provide ammunition for the enemies of what I admire. I do not share this view. The last thing I should wish is that anything I write could be used by the Anglophobes and isolationists of the Chicago Tribune. But I feel that the truth has a right to be told, and once told, can be an injury to no men of good will. Only by a knowledge of the errors of the past is it possible to correct the tactics of the future.

Although his book was written in 1949 it was not published until after his death in 1981. Ironically Quigley was correct concerning the contents of his expose’. As Murray N. Rothbard pointed out in his semi-autobiographical masterwork, The Betrayal of the American Right, the Midwestern voice of Old Right non-interventionism, Colonel Robert McCormick’s Chicago Tribune, published a contemporaneous series of hard-hitting muckraking articles in 1951 attacking what Rothbard described as “the Wall Street-Anglophile Establishment”: “Rhodes’ Goal: Return U.S. to British Empire,” “Rhodes Ideals Slant State Department Policies,” “Rhodes’ Wards Hawk Global Scheme in U.S.,” “Rhodes Grads Influential in Eastern Press — Aid British, Global Propaganda,” “Even Congress Not Immune to Rhodes’ Ideas,” and “OWI Propaganda Linked to Rhodes Men.” Here are my reflections concerning Carroll Quigley’s later seminal volume, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. Quigley was the author of two other books, The Evolution of Civilizations: An introduction to Historical Analysis; and Weapon Systems and Political Stability: A History.

Hitler Was a Communist in Early 1919

National Socialism and the Occult

The post Robert Barnes Explains WW1 and the Rise of Adolf Hitler appeared first on LewRockwell.

You may have heard that the SSPX has joined the Jubilee pilgrims in the Eternal City in the past few days. I remember reading somewhere that when Pope St. John Paul II saw the same pilgrimage process through the streets in 2000, he told Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that the SSPX dialogue needed to be resolved!

I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I hope this procession makes a good impression on Pope Leo. I’m sure it’s made an impression on literally everyone who saw Roman Catholic priests acting with the proper gravitas and celebrating the ancient Roman rite in Roman basilicas:

The SSPX English website notes this:

The SSPX has participated in the Jubilee Year in an official capacity for the last 50 years, being led by Archbishop Lefebvre himself in 1975.

Wait, what? That was in the midst of the SSPX’s canonical suppression and Lefebvre’s suspension a divinis. This was when Pope Paul VI sent a canonical visitation to the Society and these “canonical visitators” made passing comments like questioning the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s what made the Archbishop make his famous declaration of 1974, whose ambiguous words, he admitted, were overzealous.[1] (Certainly he could have worded it better, but if you know the context you can interpret his words for the best.) But this hasty declaration gave the Archbishop’s enemies all the ammo they needed to condemn him and his canonical Society in toto. What was the response of this so-called Arch-schismatic?

Archbishop Lefebvre replied in three ways: at Pentecost of that holy year, the archbishop and his seminarians joined in the magnificent pilgrimage of the Credo Association to show with the faithful their attachment to the Rome of all time; then, from Albano on May 31, he wrote a letter of submission to the successor of Peter containing a request for review of his trial; finally, on June 5, he lodged an the appeal with the court of the Apostolic Signatura against Bishop Mamie’s decision [to canonically suppress the SSPX]. It was not the Bishop of Fribourg, he wrote, but the Holy See that had the power to suppress the Society (this first point is debatable); next, he has been judged on the doctrine and only the sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is competent in this matter; finally, if his declaration [of 1974] deserves to be condemned, the condemnation should concern him and not his work.[2]

Well, I don’t know about you, but those are all pretty schismatic things to do, wouldn’t you say?

And so, keeping their schismatic attitude, the good priests of the SSPX have again come to Rome to show “their attachment to the Rome of all time.” Back in February of this year, the announcement was made to the SSPX faithful with these words:

For the third time in its history, the SSPX will have the distinguished grace of experiencing the 25-year Roman Jubilee. In 1975, in the presence of its founder, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and then in 2000, the St. Pius X Fraternity pilgrimaged to Rome to participate in this great spiritual event. Between August 19 and 21, 2025, the District of France of the SSPX will carry out its jubilee pilgrimage to Rome and hopes, on this occasion, to bring together as many faithful as possible.

We will go to Rome to walk those streets laden with the history of the Church, to pray in the basilicas following in the footsteps of so many saints and holy men and women, in the footsteps of so many Christians who came to visit the tombs of the Apostles.

We will go to Rome, Catholic Rome, Apostolic Rome, the Rome of the martyrs, to proclaim our faith, to sing our love for Our Lord Jesus Christ, to reap the abundant fruits of His Redemption.

We are going to Rome to purify ourselves of our sins, to obtain indulgences for our sins and to sanctify our souls in this city of grace. Let us make a pilgrimage of faith, of prayer, of penance, to obtain those indulgences that the Church draws with particular generosity from her spiritual treasury during this Holy Year and distributes them widely for the salvation of our souls.

We will go to Rome to proclaim and manifest our unwavering attachment to the Apostolic See, to the Pope successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, to the bishops successors of the Apostles, to the priests their collaborators, and to the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.

We will go to Rome, simply because we are Catholics, children of the Church, and because we want to remain Catholics no matter what happens.

And it is precisely because we are and want to be Catholics that, during this Jubilee pilgrimage, with a special intensity (although, of course, we already do it every day), we will pray for the Pope, for the bishops, for the priests, for the whole Church, so that, in the terrible crisis she is going through, to which we are all sorrowful witnesses and victims, she may regain her splendor, with a faith fully rooted in her bimillennial Tradition and intrepidly proclaimed for the salvation of the world.

We will therefore go to Rome “for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity, for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, for the love of the Church, for the love of the Pope, for the love of the bishops, priests, and all the faithful, for the salvation of the world, for the salvation of souls,” and first and foremost for the salvation of our own souls (emphasis mine).

Can you believe these schismatics? Spending their time, money, energy and lots of sacrifices… and for what? To “manifest our unwavering attachment to the Apostolic See, to the Pope successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Vatican Sends SSPX Pilgrimage Down the Memory Hole? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Were one to conduct a survey of modern-day Americans, taken at random, it is likely that not one in a hundred would have heard of the poet Richard Crashaw. Were one to cross the Atlantic and conduct a similar experiment with modern-day Englishmen, it is likely that the result would be the same. This neglect and ignorance of one of England’s greatest poets says more about the barbarism of the age in which we live than it does about the merits of the neglected poet.

Richard Crashaw (1613-49) was one of the greatest poets of his age, or indeed of any age. He is one of what might be called the magnificent seven of 17th-century poets (not to be confused with the “secret seven” poets whom we discussed earlier), the other six being Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Donne, George Herbert, John Milton, and John Dryden.

Although every member of this “magnificent seven” deserves recognition as a great poet, most of them do not deserve recognition as heroes of Christendom, either sung or unsung. Let’s consider them individually.

Shakespeare qualifies most emphatically as an unsung hero and has already been the subject of an essay in this series; Ben Jonson converted, possibly under Shakespeare’s influence, but then apostatized; John Donne was raised Catholic and was related to the martyr St. Thomas More but became antagonistic to the faith of his fathers; George Herbert, a minister of the Church of England, never seems to have contemplated conversion; and John Milton was virulently anti-Catholic. By contrast, the final member, John Dryden, was a convert to the Faith who should also be numbered among our unsung heroes. More on him presently, but let’s return to Crashaw.

Richard Crashaw was the son of the puritan clergyman and preacher William Crashaw, who had fulminated against Shakespeare and the theatre. In a sermon delivered in London in 1608, he had condemned “ungodly plays” for being

a bastard of Babylon [a derogatory synonym for Rome in puritanical Biblespeak], a daughter of error and confusion; a hellish device—the devil’s own recreation to mock at holy things—by him delivered to the heathen and by them to the Papists, and from them to us.  

These words encapsulate the iconoclastic spirit of puritanism, reflecting the puritan disdain for Western civilization. In one terse, bombastic sentence, the entire legacy of the West is dismissed as being a contagious disease, passed from the devil to the “heathen” Greeks and Romans, and then to the “papist” Catholics until finally, via Shakespeare and his fellow playwrights, it had contaminated modern England. It is no surprise that the puritans would shut down the theaters after they seized power following the English Civil War, as well as banning “papist” feasts, such as Christmas and Easter.

In February 1610, two years after the sermon in London, William Crashaw was warning the Lord Governor of Virginia of the greatest threat to the newly founded colony: “We confess this action hath three great enemies: but who be they? even the Devil, Papists, and Players.”

Ironically, William Crashaw’s son, Richard, born three years after these splenetic words were spoken, would become a Catholic, converting during the Civil War and being forced into exile in consequence. Living in abject poverty in Paris and then in Rome, he was eventually appointed, in April 1649, to the post of subcanon of the Shrine of Loreto in Italy, dying only four months later. A devotee of St. Teresa of Avila, he is a poet of the stature of the great St. John of the Cross, that other great poet and follower of St. Teresa who also suffered greatly for the Faith.

Apart from the many poems written in his native tongue, Crashaw published a noted volume of Latin verse, Epigrammatum Sacrorum Liber, which contains the sublime line on the miracle at Cana: Nympha pudica Deum vidit et erubuit (“the modest water saw its God and blushed”). He is best known, however, for the two poems inspired by St. Teresa of Avila, “A Hymn to the Name and Honour of the Admirable Saint Teresa” and “Upon the Book and Picture of the Seraphical Saint Teresa,” the latter of which is quite simply one of the most beautiful prayers ever written. As for the self-sacrificial spirit that pervades his work as it pervaded his life, it is encompassed in his personal motto:

Live Jesus, Live, and let it be
My life to die, for love of thee.

One of the finest tributes to Richard Crashaw was paid by that fine literary scholar R.V. Young. Writing in the St. Austin Review, Young lauded Crashaw’s “meekness in persecution and his patience in suffering” and emphasized his “continuing significance for twenty-first century Catholics and the abiding power of his poetic vision”:

As a man, he is a model of fidelity under circumstances when adherence to the Catholic Faith put him in conflict with both his family traditions and wider English society and left him in great uncertainty as to his future in the world. In his poetry, he offers breathtaking depictions of the joy of union with Christ without neglecting the cost in earthly suffering or the doctrinal meaning of devotional experience.

Having allowed this finest of scholars to wax lyrical on this finest of poets, let’s conclude by turning our attention, albeit all too briefly, to the final member of the “magnificent seven” to warrant a place among the unsung heroes. This is John Dryden (1631-1700), whose greatest work, The Hind and the Panther, published in 1687, two years after his conversion to Catholicism, is a monumental apologia for the Catholic Faith and an equally monumental rebuttal of the claims of Anglicanism.

Like Crashaw, Dryden suffered persecution for his fidelity to the Faith and, like Crashaw, he is a true literary giant whose neglect by the modern world is scandalous. He deserves, like Crashaw, to become much better known. Perhaps in healthier and happy times this dynamic duo, part of the magnificent seven, will rise from the ashes of present neglect like a phoenix of faith, resurrected and born again within the hearts of new generations of civilized readers.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post English Poet, Catholic Exile appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week Argentina’s Javier Milei regime tried to roll over bonds by offering investors an insane 69% interest rate, and only succeeded in rolling over 61% of them. Even a 69% annual interest rate isn’t enough to tempt investors to risk lending to the Milei ponzi, which means they either expect a default very soon, or they expect price inflation to exceed 69% over the next year. This was an ice-cold bucket of reality poured on the delusional talk of an economic miracle by the clown who plays a free market economist on TV and has been placed in the presidency to revive Argentina’s largest industry: sovereign bond pump-and-dumps.

Even if the bond auction had succeeded, it is difficult to see how Argentina could possibly avoid default and/or very high inflation in the rest of Milei’s term. According to Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, and basic common sense, no country has ever offered a yield higher than 30% on its bonds and avoided default, hyperinflation, or an IMF bail-out within the next three years. Failing to sell a bond at more than double that yield means the writing is on the wall, and you can safely ignore the media hype about an ‘economic miracle’. As I discussed last year,[1] Milei is just another inflationist president, and the inevitable consequences are rearing their ugly head.

During his first year in office, Milei used his free marketeer TV routine to pretend to bring economic freedom to the Argentine economy, but reneged on his campaign promise to shut down the central bank, and instead went about attempting to save it by adding its debt to the government’s debt; reneged on his promise to fight inflation by doubling or tripling money supply measures; reneged on his promise to not raise taxes; sought an IMF bail-out; and hired the same J.P. Morgan bankers, who had entrapped Argentina into tens of billions of dollars of debt, to head the most important positions in his administration and central bank. Old habits die hard, and all of the free market bluster on the campaign trail gave way to the same old fiat banksterism.

In his second year, as the peso continued to decline and his international reserves refused to recover, Milei cried and begged and brown-nosed his way to getting an IMF bail-out, as his talk of pivoting away from China and hysterically crying in Netanyahu’s arms seem to have succeeded in getting the IMF to unreasonably accommodate him[2]. In all the history of the IMF, its loans have always been the last resort of failed governments, an admission of economic failure, and a pawning of national sovereignty and future generations’ wealth in search of a few quick bucks to help failed leaders stay in power. But Milei and his bankster buddies have hilariously and shamelessly treated the new IMF loan like a triumph, with Luis Caputo giving a speech thanking his wife and children for their support during the negotiations, like he was winning an Oscar, when he had just succeeded in saddling generations of Argentines with USD debt.[3] I don’t recall seeing any government celebrating an IMF loan like this before.

With this new $20b in IMF loans, Argentina now has the highest outstanding debt to the IMF in IMF history. Argentina’s borrowing is now at 1,352% of its IMF quota, the highest excess over quota in IMF history. High-ranking IMF officials resigned, were fired, or refused to green-light this reckless loan that contravenes even the IMF’s own recklessly low standards.[4] The IMF’s own report on the debt practically acknowledged that the country’s debt is unrepayable.[5] Argentina’s loans now likely constitute more than 40% of the IMF’s entire lending portfolio! It’s fair to say at this point that the IMF primarily exists to lend to Argentina, thanks to the endless supply of Argentine scammers willing to pawn off their future generations’ wealth. But it doesn’t just stop at the IMF! Milei has also borrowed another $12 billion from the World Bank (WB), and $10 billion from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), for a total of $42 billion borrowed from international institutions to add to the already enormous public debt. The cost of servicing this and the existing debt is enormous, and makes all adjustments to the budget inconsequential. And the cherry on top: Milei shipped off the little that remained of Argentina’s once significant gold reserves to London in search for a quick yield buck.

So what has this extreme inflation and indebtedness gotten Argentina exactly? If you read the economically illiterate international financial press[6], then Milei has presided over a supposed economic miracle because GDP growth has rebounded, while inflation and poverty have declined, and the budget has been balanced. This is nonsense, and the fact that it is being promoted so heavily speaks volumes about the role that the international financial press plays in promoting IMF and bankster debt slavery and the bond market shitcoin casino.

In the real world, away from bond shitcoin promotional fiat media, the Argentine peso has barely stopped declining, and consumer prices have been constantly rising, exactly as you would expect from a drastic increase in the money supply. Continued intervention in the foreign exchange market has now made Argentina expensive even in dollar terms[7]. The black market peso exchange rate has dropped 30% against the dollar in just 21 months, during which time the dollar itself has been dropping against most major foreign currencies. The official rate, on the other hand, has dropped by around 70%, from 400 pesos per dollar to 1,300 pesos per dollar. Just in the last month of July, both rates dropped around 13%, which suggests Argentine people and the banking speculators already see the writing on the wall.

It is of course important to remember that government inflation statistics are obviously always and everywhere manipulated to understate the true extent of inflation, and in Argentina this is taken to absurd lengths.[8] And yet, even by the government’s own ridiculous numbers, the situation is a monstrous travesty. After year-on-year price inflation rates rose to almost 300% in the first few months of his presidency, it has declined to the 30-40% range in recent months, and the cumulative price inflation since Milei has taken office is 155%, a figure that can in no way be explained away or blamed on predecessors. That the inflation has slowed down to these high levels is no triumph whatsoever. It is very uncommon to maintain price inflation above 200% for a long period of time. After doubling and tripling the money supply, an insolvent government can meet most of its obligations in its own currency, and more excessive money creation is not necessary or useful anymore, because very little purchasing power is left in the currency, and increasing its supply just translates to quick devaluation and very little seigniorage.

After almost two years in office, it would have been absolutely trivial for Milei to bring price inflation down to close to zero with the one simple trick that the Austrians he claims to adore have always stood by: stop creating money. Price inflation is not some act of god, natural disaster, or inexplicable spiritual malady; it is not something governments need to fight; it is something only governments and central banks can cause; it is the inevitable consequence of increasing the money supply, and that was entirely Milei’s choice. He ran on a platform of ending inflation, had the mandate to close the central bank, which was the easiest way to achieve it, but he reneged on his promise and abjectly failed at his stated mission. After all this time, the blame for this failure lies entirely with Milei. It was his choice to keep the central bank running and to massively increase the money supply. He can keep hysterically crying about the socialists and Kirchnerists all he likes, but this is now fully his presidency, and this inflation today is entirely his making.

It’s very telling here to compare Argentina to Lebanon, another hyperinflationary basket case which went through hyperinflation over the past six years and has seen its currency devalue even more than the peso. After year-on-year price inflation rose north of 100% and the lira was devalued by more than 95% against the dollar, the government could meet its lira liabilities, and it stopped increasing the money supply significantly, with year-on-year price inflation coming down to 14% in recent months. During this period, Lebanon witnessed a massively destructive war, and for much of the period it did not even have a president. An economic miracle, this was not. Everyone understands this is just the inevitable winding down of hyperinflation, a central bank taking a break after its currency has been completely destroyed and more money creation becoming futile. With very little wealth held in liras, increasing the supply of the lira can barely generate any seigniorage for the government, just very quick devaluation. Nowhere in the fiat cartel media is anyone lauding this as an economic miracle, or recommending war and political vacuum to achieve it. And yet, with a price inflation rate more than double that of Lebanon, Milei is being lauded as a genius. The difference is that he has taken billions in loans from the IMF, WB and IDB, and is allowing Wall Street and bond traders to profit from his central bank destroying the peso to pay exorbitant bond yields. His despicable groveling to the genocidal Zionist regime couldn’t have hurt, too.

A Tale of Two Shitcoins: Which is the economic miracle and which is the result of war and a political vacuum?

The hype around free market reforms has also sadly tempted a lot of Argentines to deposit billions of US Dollar cash savings into the banking system[9], where they are likely to disappear into the black hole of government debt ponzi. Milei and Caputo are currently trying to force the banks to buy more government bonds, yet again using the savings of Argentinians to prop up the government’s unsustainable debt, which is crashing the banks’ stocks and bringing back painful memories of the Corralón of 2001.[10] Another IMF bailout so soon after the last one seems highly unlikely, although Milei is actually offering to give the genocidal monster Netanyahu an honorary residency[11] so you never know.

Fiat cartel media is also lauding Milei for achieving GDP growth, but this is also ridiculous, given how much inflation he has created. It is always possible to pump GDP numbers in the short run with money creation, but the cost is paid in the future through debt servicing, fiscal and monetary crises, and burst economic bubbles. Another ridiculous stat being lauded by economically-illiterate fiat bankster media is a sharp decline in the poverty rate. All government produced statistics are creative accounting nonsense, but poverty rates are one of the most creative and nonsensical. The poverty rate is calculated by comparing incomes to living costs, and at a time in which the currency is devaluing as quickly as it is in Argentina, this becomes a futile exercise in creative and arbitrary accounting, as all incomes, prices, denominators, and numerators shift quickly, and the statistician can take extreme liberties with his choices of deflators and real adjustments. It is inconceivable that millions of Argentines have escaped poverty as their currency has been destroyed, prices have risen in pesos and dollars, and unemployment[12] and the tax burden have risen. On the contrary, one of the most reliable indicators that the Milei miracle is fake is how soon it came after he came into office. If he were to indeed create an economic miracle, it would definitely not happen overnight. It would require economic decisions extremely unpopular in the short term, it would cause an economic recession as countless people lose their fake fiat jobs, as labor and capital are reallocated to uses determined by the market rather than government and fiat inflation. Milei’s decisive electoral victory seemed a unique opportunity to pull this off, using the popular mandate to close the central bank and grit the nation’s teeth through the pain until the benefits materialized, but he chose immediate gratification through inflation and debt instead.

All talk of a free market is empty rhetoric as long as the government manipulates the money, which is a part of every economic exchange in the market, and in Argentina, government control of the money is complete. The money supply continues to increase, and the central bank is imposing an interest rate of 65%, making speculation on the government’s bonds the only possibly profitable industry. Restrictions on foreign currency are still in place in spite of all the talk of liberalization.[13]

Milei seems to have managed to balance the budget, but this is not the win his promoters think it is.[14] The budget is only balanced if one does not count the cost of servicing the debt, which is enormous. Balancing the budget while piling on more debt and enormously growing the cost of debt servicing is like closing the barn door after the cows have already left; it’s not going to bring them back. Further, he has raised taxes in spite of promising to cut his arm before raising them.[15] This just means an increased burden of the state on society, primarily to pay off bond speculators. He may have reduced government spending, which seems admirable on its face, but in reality this has come mainly in the form of cuts to public works like road maintenance, which will mean decrepit infrastructure, and cuts to retirement and pensions[16], exacerbating the poverty his sycophants in the media pretend he has reduced. The viral video of him eliminating entire government ministries is yet another broken campaign promise, with most of these being renamed into secretaries and the total cost savings amounting to a rounding error.[17] He has also vowed to quadruple spending on the military[18], a ridiculous waste for a bankrupt government under no threat from its friendly neighbors, and likely an expensive stunt to curry favor with the global arms industry and the US and Israeli governments in the hope of getting more loans.

In sum, Milei has increased inflation, taxation, and public debt, the unholy trinity of cardinal sins for the Austrian school economists he claims to adore. He has also increased military spending and supported the supreme statist crime of genocide. And what did Argentina get in return for these five indelible abominations? Just a highly volatile shitcoin casino in the form of volatile peso and government bonds with enormous yields, making bond and foreign exchange speculation the only path to financial security in Argentina, albeit a very risky one. And his fans also got empty stupid theatrics with chainsaws and profanity-laden speeches.

The sad reality is that the depreciation of fiat creates a demand for chasing yield from government bonds, and all over the world, a lot of money is forced by government regulation to go into government bonds, under the ridiculous pretext that they are the safest investment. This means a giant captive market of helpless suckers for insiders and banks to pump-and-dump government bonds on, and the fiat financial media is the pied piper luring people worldwide into these scams. The situation is identical to how shitcoin scammers invent ridiculous narratives to promote premined shitcoins, which cryptocurrency media spreads to tempt gamblers to invest in them while the makers of these coins dump their premined coins as they inevitably go to zero. “Argentina’s economic miracle” is just another scam narrative to pump and dump Argentina bond shitcoins, like “Turing-complete world computer”, “smart contract platform”, and “real estate on the blockchain” are scam narratives to pump premined scamcoins. The average macro analyst mainly differs from the average crypto influencer social media account in having better grammar and lower income. And Milei now has the rare distinction of being a seasoned veteran of both markets, as he combined ‘economic miracle’ bonds with tweeting to encourage suckers to invest in a memecoin to support Argentina’s economic growth and small businesses, then proceeded to rugpull them in hours, with his team making off with tens of millions of dollars.[19]

Without ending inflation, Milei’s libertarian and Austrian economics theatrics have been hijacked to serve the most unlibertarian and un-Austrian ends imaginable. Just when it seemed like the fiat bond ponzi in Argentina had ended and could no longer be salvaged, the same banksters who had gotten Argentina to this place plucked this clown from TV studios to pretend-play an anti-inflationist Austrian economist at the Presidency, creating the illusion that Argentina’s government’s finances and peso can be saved, tricking millions of Argentines into depositing their cash dollar savings back into the black hole of the Argentine banking system, and getting more suckers to play the government bond shitcoin casino instead of having productive jobs.

All of this would have been avoided if Milei had done what he promised in his election campaign: close the central bank. Inflation would have ended, the government would have had to actually balance its budget, and after a painful adjustment period in the first year of his presidency, Argentina would already be on the road to recovery today, with no inflation. The peso would even have likely appreciated once the money printer that creates it was destroyed, as had happened in Iraq when the US military destroyed the Iraqi central bank.[20] Instead, Argentina has now been through two years of painful volatility, growing unemployment and price rises, and it is yet to face the real pain from the growing debt burden and inflation.

When the ponzi collapses, as it always does, Argentines will have lost their cash savings, and most suckers who invest in bonds will have been ruined, but the fiat cartel banks will walk away well-fed, as they always do. Milei will discredit Austrian and libertarian ideas for decades to come by associating them with their diametrical opposites: inflation, indebtedness, bond market pump-and-dumps, and genocide. It is only his constant invocation of the Austrians that makes me take time from my busy schedule to discuss this con artist and his unfortunate country. Socialists of the world, you can now laugh at us libertarians for stealing from you the same line for which we have mocked you for decades: but it wasn’t real libertarianism!

In a fantastic revelation of his character after the memecoin shitcoin he promoted collapsed, Milei had the audacity to go on TV to abdicate all responsibility for the losses among his followers, and effectively told his countrymen: NO CRYING IN THE CASINO![21] We can only hope Milei takes his own advice when his peso and bonds scams implode and spares us the repulsive spectacle of his demonic plastic-surgeoned face crying.

References

A particularly helpful resource for me in writing this piece was the work of Nick Corbishley on Naked Capitalism.

[1] https://x.com/saifedean/status/1877717156420341885 [2]https://nakedcapitalism.com/2025/04/why-did-us-treasury-sec-scott-bessent-visit-argentina-yesterday-just-three-days-after-another-massive-unpayable-imf-bailout.html
[3] https://x.com/SchamneNicolass/status/1910835804282249343
[4] https://nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08/less-than-four-months-after-imf-bailout-and-lifting-of-currency-controls-argentina-is-back-in-crisis-mode.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
[5] https://lapoliticaonline.com/economia/el-fmi-reconoce-en-el-nuevo-acuerdo-que-la-deuda-de-argentina-es-practicamente-impagable/
[6]
https://thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-mileis-manmade-miracle-argentina-economy

https://ft.com/content/7b687fd9-41ce-41ab-ae73-93b96e11b666 https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/19/when-will-world-wake-up-argentinian-miracle/
[7] https://lanacion.com.ar/el-mundo/como-la-argentina-paso-de-ser-un-pais-barato-en-dolares-a-uno-de-los-mas-caros-de-america-latina-nid23012025/
[8] https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-19/milei-s-inflation-miracle-distorted-by-obsolete-items-in-argentina-index
[9]https://reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-tax-amnesty-push-pulls-18-billion-deposits-2024-10-31/#:~:text=BUENOS%20AIRES%2C%20Oct%2031%20Reuters,an%20official%20said%20on%20Thursday.
[10] https://lapoliticaonline.com/economia/el-gobierno-le-declaro-la-guerra-a-los-bancos-y-les-impuso-un-corralito/
[11] https://nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08/netanyahus-argentina-conundrum.html
[12] https://perfil.com/noticias/bravotv/el-empleo-privado-no-logra-repuntar-y-volvio-a-caer-en-marzo-se-perdieron-mas-de-siete-mil-puestos-de-trabajo.phtml
[13] https://bcra.gob.ar/SistemasFinancierosYdePagos/Regulaciones_exterior_y_cambios_i.asp?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://ambito.com/economia/para-las-empresas-el-final-del-cepo-debera-esperar-cuales-son-las-restricciones-que-quedan-vigentes-n6134370
[14] https://mises.org/power-market/when-balancing-budget-hurts-economy
[15] https://elespanol.com/opinion/tribunas/20250817/falso-milagro-economico-milei/1003743885755_12.amp.html
[16] https://elespanol.com/opinion/tribunas/20250817/falso-milagro-economico-milei/1003743885755_12.amp.html
[17] https://letrap.com.ar/puro-humo-el-recorte-del-gabinete-javier-milei-representa-el-000142-del-presupuesto-n5405158?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[18] https://economist.com/the-americas/2024/08/22/javier-milei-is-splurging-on-the-army & https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2024/09/16/argentina-gasto-defensa-milei-orix
[19]
https://x.com/saifedean/status/1890724929168912636. The case of this shitcoin is still being tried in American courts and Milei may yet find himself in serious trouble over it.
https://lapoliticaonline.com/entrevista/agost-carreno-en-la-causa-de-estados-unidos-empiezan-a-nombrar-a-karina-milei/
[20] https://mises.org/free-market/dinars-or-dollar [21] https://x.com/100xgemfinder/status/1891963507215622432

The post Javier Milei Unraveled appeared first on LewRockwell.

After four years of unnecessarily confrontational foreign policy under President Biden, Americans elected Donald Trump in part for his promise to put America first at home and overseas. He promised a war-weary America that he would start no new wars and would get us out of the existing ones. Eight months into his second Administration it appears his promise remains to be fulfilled, as his approval rating continues to slip.

On Ukraine, President Trump wisely observed coming into office that the conflict is “Joe Biden’s war” not his own. Unfortunately he could not resist the temptation to get involved in the conflict, even under the guise of “peacemaker.” I’ve often said that getting out of conflicts overseas is not that complicated: we should just come home. Even when there are no troops involved, “just come home” means disengage from the conflict. But President Trump wants to play referee in the war while arming and supporting one side. Is it any wonder he is making no progress in ending the war?

Likewise with Israel and Gaza, Trump’s promise to put America first has faltered. President Biden put Americans on the hook for additional billions of dollars to support Israel’s actions in Gaza without even a word about the slaughter and destruction. As more Americans become disgusted by Israel’s obliteration of the property and population of that tiny strip of land, Trump shows no signs of shifting from Biden’s approach. More money and more weapons are sent as starvation claims more and more children each day. Trump has reportedly remarked to a donor that his own base is turning against him because of his Israel policy. Yet he refuses to alter course and “just come home.”

Trump has even returned to the failed Latin America policy of his first Administration, in last week’s move toward a military confrontation with oil-rich Venezuela. Trump sent two warships and 4,000 US troops to the waters near Venezuela under the highly suspect accusation that the country’s president is actually head of an international drug cartel. He should have learned from the almost comical recognition of Juan Guaido as the real president of Venezuela in his first term that meddling in that country is not in America’s interest. It seems the neocons around him, including warhawk Marco Rubio, are sucking him into another unnecessary conflict.

Add in Trump’s military attacks on Yemen and Iran and the balance sheet thus far does not point to an “America first” foreign policy.

There is still time for President Trump to change course and fulfil his promises to the American people. Put Ukraine and Russia on notice that from this point the US is withdrawing from any role in the conflict. Let the Europeans work it out if they feel it is in their interest. Getting us out of NATO is also a good idea.

End US financial and military support for an Israel that cannot seem to get along with its neighbors. Perhaps without the US backstopping Israel’s warmongering, the country and its leadership would start to reflect on the wisdom of starting wars with multiple countries in its neighborhood.

Stop trying to overthrow Venezuela’s Maduro and everyone else the neocons have placed on the “hit list.” End all sanctions and open up trade instead. Maduro’s failed socialist economic policies will be his undoing, not American sanctions or saber-rattling.

America first above all means “just come home.” It’s that simple.

The post President Trump Should Return to an ‘America First’ Foreign Policy appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I first applied for a driver’s license, I was asked if I wanted to designate myself as an organ donor. Given my learned distrust of societal institutions (e.g., medicine) and a few concerning stories I’d come across, I opted to not be an organ donor. However, I also felt quite conflicted about doing so, particularly since I strongly believe in following the golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated) and knew that if I needed a transplant I would be desperate for the appropriate donor to be willing to give the gift of life to me.

Since that time (when information challenging the mainstream narrative was quite difficult to find), I’ve come across much more information on the topic which paints a rather disturbing but also amazing profoundly paradigm shifting perspective on the topic (e.g., this article will detail the tangible spiritual consequences of receiving an unethically harvested organ).

However, due to my inherent conflict over this topic (e.g., many people need organs so I don’t want to discourage donations—particularly since organ shortages cause even more unethical steps to be taken to procure organs), I focused on other topics and only started this article in July. To my great surprise, a few weeks later, RFK Jr. did something I never anticipated and formally announced that there were widespread failures of the ethical safeguards in our organ donation system, after which, the Overton window was blown open and others (e.g., the head of the Independent Medical Alliance) began discussing the grim reality organs were being taken from still living people.

The Value of Organs

I have long observed that as long as enough money is on the line, there always will be a portion of people who are willing to do horrific and unimaginable things (e.g., slaughter people in overseas wars for profit). As such, I always consider the actual incentives at work when trying to appraise the reality of worrisome situations I come across.

One of the great accomplishments of the medical system was it creating the mythology it could conquer death, after which it gradually pivoted to being viewed as essential for remaining alive, and then to something which was necessary to continuously consume for “health”—all of which allowed it become incredibly profitable (and consume an ever increasing share of America’s GDP—currently totaling over 17.6% of all money spent in the United States).

Note: Medical Nemesis was an insightful 1976 book which predicted much of what followed. In Chapter 5 (pages 64–77—which can be read here), Ivan Illich highlights how the cultural conception of death evolved from an intimate, lifelong companion we had no separation from to a feared, medicalized entity to be conquered. He traced this shift through six historical stages, from the Renaissance ‘Danse Macabre’ to modern death under intensive care, where death is defined by the cessation of brain waves.

Illich argued that this medicalization, driven by the medical profession’s growing control, stripped individuals of autonomy, turned death into a commodity, and reinforced social control through compulsory care. This Western death image, exported globally, then supplanted traditional practices, contributing to societal dysfunction by alienating people from their own mortality. I agree with this, but feel the impacts of this were far more profound than even Illich hinted at.

In tandem with this, medicine began performing medical “miracles” such as being able to raise the dead (via cardiac resuscitation) and transplant organs. Opening the previously insurmountable boundaries between life and death, in turn, earned the discipline immense credit in the eyes of the public, and hence allowed it to justify being paid obscene amounts for its services (whereas in the past, doctors were paid very little and frequently only if they were able to get others better).
Note: as I will discuss in this article, crossing that boundary also called into question the materialistic (non-spiritual) paradigm modern science rests upon.

Because of this, coupled with how limited viable donor organs are, transplants rapidly became an incredibly valuable commodity (e.g., the cost of a transplant ranges from $446,800 to $1,918,700 depending on the organ—with the heart being the most expensive). As such, given how desperate many are for the organs, and how much money is at stake, it felt reasonable to assume some degree of illegal organ harvesting would occur given that people are routinely killed in other contexts for profit (e.g., in overseas wars, with a pharmaceutical company pushing lucrative drug they know can kill, or the brutal cartel violence done to establish territory).

Over the years, I then found various pieces of evidence suggesting this was happening, the worst of which I was unsure if they indeed transpired. As this is disturbing, you may want to skip the rest of this section. These included:

•Individuals being tricked into selling a kidney (e.g., in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4—approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden and in 2023, a wealthy Nigerian politician being convicted for trying to trick someone into donating a kidney for a transplant at an English hospital).

•A 2009 and 2014 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments and the possibility of surviving with one kidney (though this greatly reduces your vitality). Approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China and Africa), receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care. To quote the 2009 article:

Diflo became an outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that, rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis patients had their transplants done in China. There they could purchase the kidneys of executed prisoners. In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell organs to foreign buyers in order to contribute to the family’s income, or to provide for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable data are almost impossible to come by.

Note: these reports also highlighted that these surgeries operate on the periphery of the medical system and involve complicit medical professionals who typically claim ignorance of its illegality (e.g., a good case was made a few US hospitals like Cedars Sinai were complicit in the trade).

• A 2004 court case where a South African hospital pled guilty to illegally transplanting kidneys from poorer recipients (who received $6,000–$20,000) to wealthy recipients (who paid up to $120,000).1,2

• Many reports of organ harvesting by the Chinese government against specific political prisoners.1,2,3,4,5,6 This evidence is quite compelling, particularly since until 2006, China admitted organs were sourced from death row prisoners (with data suggesting the practice has not stopped).
Note: harvesting organs from death row prisoners represents one of the most reliable ways to get healthy organs immediately at the time of death.

• Over the years, I’ve read allegations Israel illegally harvested organs from murdered Palestinians.1,2,3 I have never known what to make of these, as while some of the evidence appears compelling, neither the sources nor the evidence are definitive (often coming from those politically opposed to Israel), and logistically, collecting organs from someone who was just murdered on the battlefield before the organ expires is very difficult (and would require a specialized harvesting team to be there—something I’ve never seen reported). However, it has been officially admitted longer lasting tissues (e.g., corneas) were harvested without consent from Israelis and Palestinians bodies until the practice was banned in the 1990s.
Note: I’ve also read reports of organ harvesting occurring in Middle East conflict zones, by ISIS and in the Kosovo conflict, and with drug cartels.

Given all of this, I am unsure of the extent of “unethical” organ harvesting, but I am sure it happens (including in the most horrific manner we can imagine) and that there are likely far more cases of which have been successfully swept under the rug. Simultaneously, I strongly suspect the state sanctioned form has gradually decreased as more awareness was brought to the problem (however this may be counterbalanced by the blackmarket as the demand for organs continues to increase).

Note: many other valuable tissues (e.g., tendons and corneas) can be harvested from dead bodies. Significant controversy also exists with the ethics of how these are collected (e.g., the respect given to the bodies or how profit focused that industry is). As there is less oversight with these transplants, a significant amount of questionable conduct is rarely reported, but as the primary ethical concerns are not applicable (e.g., harvesting from a non-consenting living donor), this topic will not be discussed in this article.

Locked-In Syndrome

Since so many different parts of the brain control different facets of our being, individuals who are still conscious can sometimes completely lose control of their bodies or the ability to community with the outside world (termed Locked-in syndrome).

In one famous case, Martin, a 12-year old who fell ill with meningitis entering a vegetative state, was sent home with his parents to await his death, but instead remained alive and was brought by his father to a special care center at 5 am each day. When he turned 16, he began regaining consciousness, by 19 became fully aware of everything around him, then gradually regained some control of his eyes, and at 26 (long after he’d become a background object), a caregiver realized he was showing signs of awareness, at which point he was tested, giving a communication computer, and gradually regained his functionality (eventually getting married).

Note: two aspects I never forgot from his memoir were the years he spent being haunted by his exasperated mother (without thinking) once saying “I hope you die” and him sharing “I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney” as the care center he spent years at, assuming he was vegetative, had him watch Barney the Dinosaur re-runs each day.

Since our ability to perceive and interact with the world depends upon many different regions of the brain, those capacities also fade as one is nearing death. However, rather than being a random process, certain functions are lost before others. In turn, it’s frequently observed within the palliative medical field (where support is offered to dying individuals) that touch and hearing are the last two senses to disappear (e.g., this study showed hearing is preserved at the end of life). As such, I often think of Martin’s story (with people who are assumed to be unaware of their environment) and periodically tell grieving families there is a possibility their “brain dead” (or soon to die) loved one can either hear their voice or feel their touch as this often provides a significant degree of closure for them (and every now and then I hear a story suggesting that final communication was perceived).

Note: a strong case can be made that modern medicine functions as the state religion of our society (with many of its rituals and behaviors having strong parallels to what was seen in other religions such as doctors’ white coats being equivalent to a priest’s robes or vaccines being its holy water you are baptized in). Cardiac resuscitation (“raising the dead”) likewise is a powerful miracle which many have argued helped cement our modern faith in medicine. What’s less recognized (as it challenges science’s spirit-denying dogma that insists consciousness resides solely within the brain) is that many resuscitated individuals have had replicable “near death experiences” where they were aware of their surroundings (often from outside their body) when their brain was “dead.” This is turn suggests that other “less recognized” senses may also persist at the time of brain death.

In parallel, while rare, every now and then cases occur when “dead” people come back to life (e.g., a Mississippi man who’d been in a body bag for a while woke up right before being embalmed—and numerous other cases exist of someone declared dead by multiple physicians later waking up1,2,3).

The Specificity of Brain Death

Sensitivity designates being able to spot something that is there while specificity designates not erroneously spotting something which wasn’t actually there (a false positive). In most cases, it is impossible to have perfect sensitivity and specificity, as once you increase one, you inevitably decrease the other (e.g., tough on crime approaches reduce crime but also inevitably result in innocent people being arrested and convicted).

This concept is typically looked at with medical diagnoses (e.g., not missing a cancer that is there but also not erroneously diagnosing a cancer and putting someone through a harmful and unnecessary cancer protocol—which for example is a common issue with routine screening mammograms), but also applies to many other fields to. In turn, I believe many issues in society boil down to finding the best possible balance between the two, but frequently, issues become polarized and irreconcilable as neither side is willing to consider the other (sensitivity or specificity) or alternately, only one side is publicly presented and we never hear about the other (e.g., we are constantly told about the dangers of not vaccinating and catching diseases but rarely if ever about the far more frequent injuries that result from vaccination).

Since organs rapidly lose their viability once someone dies, the only consistent way to ethically obtain them is from someone who has already “died” but whose body is still keeping the organs alive—in other words, from someone who is brain dead.

Given that the potential exists for individuals who are brain dead to still be alive (e.g., consider the examples I just provided) and how much money is on the line for transplants, this naturally led me to wonder if the specificity of that diagnosis might have been lowered to meet the needed quotas.

For example, The New York Times published an essay two weeks ago advocating for increasing the sensitivity for detecting brain death which many understandably found quite disturbing. To quote it:

Donor Organs Are Too Rare. We Need a New Definition of Death.

A person may serve as an organ donor only after being declared dead…Brain death is rare, though.

The need for donor organs is urgent. An estimated 15 people die in this country every day waiting for a transplant.

New technologies can help. But the best solution, we believe, is legal: We need to broaden the definition of death.

Fortunately, there is a relatively new method that can improve the efficacy of donation after circulatory death. In this procedure, which is called normothermic regional perfusion, doctors take an irreversibly comatose donor off life support long enough to determine that the heart has stopped beating permanently — but then the donor is placed on a machine that circulates oxygen-rich blood through the body to preserve organ function. Donor organs obtained through this procedure, which is used widely in Europe and increasingly in the United States, tend to be much healthier.

But by artificially circulating blood and oxygen, the procedure can reanimate a lifeless heart. Some doctors and ethicists find the procedure objectionable because, in reversing the stoppage of the heart, it seems to nullify the reason the donor was declared dead in the first place. Is the donor no longer dead, they wonder?

Proponents of the procedure reply that the resumption of the heartbeat should not be considered resuscitation; the donor still has no independent functioning, nor is there any hope of it. They say that it is not the donor but rather regions of the body that have been revived.

How to resolve this debate? The solution, we believe, is to broaden the definition of brain death to include irreversibly comatose patients on life support. Using this definition, these patients would be legally dead regardless of whether a machine restored the beating of their heart.

So long as the patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed without delay. The ethical debate about normothermic regional perfusion would be moot. And we would have more organs available for transplantation.

Apart from increased organ availability, there is also a philosophical reason for wanting to broaden the definition of brain death. The brain functions that matter most to life are those such as consciousness, memory, intention and desire. Once those higher brain functions are irreversibly gone, is it not fair to say that a person (as opposed to a body) has ceased to exist?

In 1968, a committee of doctors and ethicists at Harvard came up with a definition of brain death — the same basic definition most states use today. In its initial report the committee noted that “there is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.”

This frank assessment was edited out of the final report because of a reviewer’s objection. But it is one that should guide death and organ policy today.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Unseen Cost of Organ Transplants: Ethical Issues and Spiritual Implications appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you listen long enough, people will eventually tell you exactly what they truly believe. Unfortunately, we have just learned what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky truly believes about the war with Russia, and it is not good news at all. Apparently Zelensky is convinced that there will not be a permanent state of peace until all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea belong to his government. Needless to say, the Russians will never hand all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea over to Ukraine willingly, and so they will need to be taken by force. Since the Ukrainians cannot do this alone, they will be seeking to enlist the help of others, and that is what should deeply alarm all of us.

The mainstream media’s fawning coverage of Zelensky’s Independence Day speech makes him sounds like some sort of a great peacemaker.  Here is just one example…

President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine would continue to fight for its freedom “while its calls for peace are not heard,” in a defiant address to the nation on its independence day.

“We need a just peace, a peace where our future will be decided only by us,” he said, adding that Ukraine was “not a victim, it is a fighter”.

He continued: “Ukraine has not yet won, but it has certainly not lost.”

That makes him sound so incredibly reasonable.

But the mainstream media did not report on any of the troubling parts of Zelensky’s speech.

I went and found a transcript of the speech, and it reveals Zelensky’s real goals…

And now, in a full-scale war for independence, it is here, on Maidan, that one can find such important symbols. Symbols of how we fight, what we fight for, and how we are overcoming this war.

These symbols are all around us. In this Independence Monument. Inside, it has a reinforced concrete frame and can literally withstand a hurricane. In the same way, our Ukraine has withstood the great calamity that Russia brought to our land. In this “Zero Kilometer” point. It is the starting point where distances to Ukrainian cities are written: to our Donetsk, our Luhansk, our Crimea. Today, these markers have a completely different meaning. They are no longer just about kilometers. They remind us that all of this is Ukraine. And there are our people, and no distance between us can change that, and no temporary occupation can change that. One day, the distance between Ukrainians will disappear, and we will be together again as one family, as one country. It is only a matter of time. And Ukraine believes it can achieve this — achieve peace, peace across all its land. Ukraine is capable of it.

This is what started the war in the first place.

Western leaders gave Zelensky a green light to break the Minsk agreements, and so he gathered a 70,000 soldier invasion force along the borders of the DPR and the LPR.  The Ukrainians were shelling the living daylights out of the most heavily populated cities in the DPR and the LPR and were preparing to move in when the Russians intervened.

Zelensky’s obsession with conquering Donetsk and Luhansk precipitated this entire crisis, and now 1.7 million Ukrainians are dead.

But instead of being willing to accept the compromise deal that the Russians are now offering, in his speech Zelensky defiantly proclaimed that Ukraine will never accept any “compromise” that comes from the Russians…

This is Ukraine now. And this Ukraine will never again in history be forced into the shame that the “Russians” call a “compromise.”

Yes, Zelensky is calling for a temporary ceasefire along the current line of contact, because Ukraine has been steadily losing more territory.

But in Zelensky’s mind the purpose of such a ceasefire would be to regroup and rearm in preparation for taking all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea.

That is why Ukraine’s plan is to bring as many western troops into Ukraine once a temporary ceasefire has been established.

Once they are there, it will be far easier to drag western nations into the war.

The Ukrainians aren’t stupid.  They have already lost 1.7 million soldiers and they know that the only way that they can militarily defeat Russia is with NATO’s help.

And so that is why Ukraine has been attempting to provoke Russia into doing something really dramatic over and over again.  The goal is to get the Russians to escalate matters so much that NATO will feel forced to come riding to Ukraine’s aid.

For instance, the Ukrainians just attacked a nuclear power plant deep inside Russian territory…

A fire has been put out at a nuclear power plant in Russia’s western Kursk region and air defences have shot down a Ukrainian drone, Russian officials have said.

The drone detonated when it fell and damaged a transformer, but radiation levels were normal and there were no casualties, a post from the plant’s account on messaging app Telegram said.

The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly called on both Russia and Ukraine to show maximum restraint around nuclear facilities in the war.

Why would the Ukrainians do such a thing?

The answer is obvious.

They want the Russians to strike back so hard that western leaders will finally feel compelled to join the conflict.

At one point the stunts that the Ukrainians have been pulling almost worked.  There were plans to strike decision making centers in Kyiv with Oreshnik missiles, but Russian President Vladimir Putin wisely vetoed those plans…

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Friday told reporters in an anecdote given to a press conference that Russian authorities had plans to directly attack Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office in Kiev, but that President Putin rejected the proposed action.

What’s more, Lukashenko said, is that it would have happened with the new Oreshnik missiles, which are medium-range hypersonics that Russian officials have touted as having the same destructive power as a low-yield nuclear strike.

But it is just a matter of time before the Ukrainians successfully push the Russians too far.

When that time arrives, we could find ourselves directly fighting a nation that has more nukes than we do…

Moscow continues to hold nearly 4,400 nuclear warheads, over 1,500 of which are “strategically deployed” while the U.S. possesses more than 3,700 warheads in its stockpiles with 1,400 deployed, according to the Arms Control Association.

And as I have extensively documented, Russian missiles are far superior to what we possess, and Russian anti-missile systems are far superior to what we possess as well.

We must not get into an apocalyptic conflict with the Russians.

But if the Ukrainians get their way, that is precisely what is going to happen.

Meanwhile, it appears that there will be no peace in the Middle East either.

On Sunday, the IDF conducted an enormous bombing campaign in the capital of Yemen…

Israel bombed Houthi rebel targets in Yemen’s capital on Sunday, including a military site near the presidential palace.

The attacks by the IDF, which also included strikes on the Asar and Hizaz power plants, came after the Houthis fired a “multi-headed” warhead at Israel for the first time on Friday.

The use of the munition presents a new challenge for the Israeli defence system, which up until now has successfully repelled most of the Houthis’ attacks.

Sunday’s attacks sent huge fireballs into the sky over Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, as the IDF said it had struck a “significant electricity supply facility for military activities” for the Houthis.

And it is being reported that a “defining battle” between Israeli troops and Hamas is imminent…

On Saturday, Israeli tanks and troops began maneuvering ever closer to Gaza City’s outskirts in preparation for a full-scale offensive. Eyewitness accounts reported intensified shelling as Israel is moving toward what could be the defining battle of its war against Hamas terrorists: the capture of Gaza City.

Israel’s security cabinet approved the operation, known as Gideon’s Chariots B, and has deployed up to five IDF divisions toward the city’s outskirts—a highly significant mobilization. Thousands of reservists—some 60,000—have been called up.

John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Madison Policy Forum and executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, told Fox News Digital the scale of this operation is unprecedented. “This will be a bigger challenge than anything the IDF has faced, arguably ever. It is the densest location in Gaza, the heart of Hamas’s stronghold. And you don’t really know what the tunnels are until you get into them.”

If Hamas would have just released all of the hostages, so much bloodshed could have been avoided.

But that never was going to happen, was it?

Unfortunately, just about everyone seems to have come down with a really bad case of “war fever”.

Leaders all over the planet want to fight, and so that is what they will get.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post Has He Gone Completely Insane? Zelensky Announces That There Is Not Going To Be Peace appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recently, I looked up the official population numbers for America 2.0. Even with birth rates plummeting at warp speed, some 57.8 percent of the populace remains White. I was actually astonished at this figure. One gets the distinct impression that Whites are already a minority, a situation gleefully forecast and anticipated by the elite.

The picture above reveals a reality that once existed, albeit not to such an idealized extent, not that long ago in this country. White people were large and in charge. America was a Patriarchy, run by White men. Whites were visible everywhere, from the guy who pumped your gas (there was no “self serve” in that full service era) to the clerk at any retail store to the president of every company. Every job paid a living wage, and nearly every job was done by a White person. Over 89 percent of Americans were White in 1960. Every year, the White percentage drops, and the nonwhite percentage rises. It’s about the most obvious trend one could imagine. But still, despite the anti-White propaganda and the phenomenon of self-hating Whites, we remain a large majority of the population. So what do we do other than vacation?

Now, in my own very quiet suburban neighborhood, things often resemble the 1950s. It’s overwhelmingly White, and not a single person seems compelled to ever “keep it real.” But they are mostly older Whites, many of whom bought these houses new in the late 1970s. Back when Whites were still starting families. Those children have long grown, leaving a lot of gray haired retirees wandering around their gardens, or anxiously awaiting the arrival of the mail (which is always delivered by a “person of color”). You’ll see lonely copies of the Washington Post at the end of their driveways. Only old people still read the newspaper. But some of them are still young enough to be in the workforce. That’s the question that intrigues me. Who do they work for? They must be doing pretty well financially, to live in this neighborhood. Do they all work from home? Are they all “consultants” who don’t get to experience a commute?

Recently, I’ve spent far more time than I’d like, visiting three different loved ones in hospitals, rehab centers, and nursing homes. Walking through any of them is a surreal experience. Virtually the entire staffs at all these places is nonwhite, consisting largely of African immigrants. Not a single attractive young White nurse, the kind that filled the hospital I worked in back in the mid-1970s. Did White girls just stop becoming nurses? It was a very prestigious job, and paid extremely well. Even the doctors are almost all nonwhite. No more brusque White guys in white coats, with stethoscopes hanging around their necks. Now it’s nonwhite guys who struggle to speak English. And you see less of them. Several times, we didn’t see a single doctor while spending six hours or more at one of these dark, depressing facilities. And if you thought it was hard getting a hot White nurse to come help you, try ringing for a nonwhite nurse.

Well, I do live in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, so I’ve always known lots of government workers. Beltway bandits. So, maybe that’s where all the White people work now? Try again. The DMV? Don’t make me laugh. When I had to represent the interests of my brother in person at a local Social Security office, there wasn’t a White employee in sight. I haven’t had to actually visit any other government agencies lately, but I’ve telephoned a bunch of them. And again, the phones are always answered by a rude, obviously Black woman. Yeah, I know it’s “racist” to suggest that one can determine the race of a person by their usage of crude Ebonics. I have had many family members working for the government, and some still do. But they’re all approaching retirement age. Odds are they will be replaced by a member of the 42.2 percent of the population that isn’t White. The math just doesn’t add up, unless we’re going full Common Core. The Whites have to work somewhere.

I go to the grocery store on the rare occasions my Hall of Fame wife shopper isn’t available. I see a lot of diversity in the staffs. But oddly, the shoppers are always almost all White . So what employers are providing them with the wherewithal to afford all the wildly overpriced items in the aisles? But you’ll at least see a few Whites, usually oldsters, still working at grocery stores. Other retail stores? Forget it. You can still be waited on by White servers at the restaurants I go to, but the staffs at all these places are becoming increasingly “diverse.” When I have to go the local AT&T store, to get my latest upgrade or ask inanely for some advice on how to use some feature on my “smart” phone, the person assisting me is always nonwhite. And someone who is a caricature of the character Apu on The Simpsons is going to be behind the counter at every convenience store. I understand the show actually eliminated poor Apu, as he was considered stereotypical. But undeniably a very accurate stereotype.

I have never been waited on by a White teller at my regular bank. Ever. How about construction? I recall lots of strapping young White guys who worked construction during the summer, because it paid very well and helped them stay in shape. But that was the 1970s, in a galaxy far, far away from here. As I drive around my area, I am constantly dealing with lane closures, accompanied by signs warning drivers that there is “Road Work Ahead.” When you see any evidence of this road work, it consists of nonwhites in yellow jackets, holding signs that say “slow” or “stop.” Not a strapping White guy in sight. I have only faint hopes of ever seeing one of these “diverse” crews actually performing any “road work.” I can see that the roads continue to be cracked and full of pot holes. Perhaps their real assignment is to make sure the roads don’t turn “racist.” That was, after all, one of our former beloved president Joe Biden’s primary concerns. At any rate, they’re being paid for something.

How about good old telemarketing? The black hole where people who couldn’t find work used to go. Nope, not there either. Those who are bothering you to buy something you don’t want or need will now almost always be someone with a thick Indian accent, comically given an American name like “Kyle” to make you think they’re from this country. And when you call for say, cable service, you’ll almost always get these same Indians with fake English names, and you’ll struggle to understand them. I think that’s the point, to have government agencies choose rude Black women to “help” you, and for companies to select outsourced foreign visa workers to “help” customers with their cable, phone, and other warranty questions. You’d think that a company would want someone who represents them on the phone to be exemplary in every way. Or at least somewhat like the White women who used to be receptionists. Receptionists have gone the way of the dodo.

Maybe it’s just my area. I don’t have any reason to go to CIA or FBI or Homeland Security headquarters, for instance, so it’s possible those agencies are stacked with White employees. But if one judges by local media, all across this country, again one would think that Whites are a rarely seen, tiny minority. Like Jews, for instance. Who, of course, are often visible and even more often found behind the scenes in positions of real power. I don’t watch the news much at all, but whenever I happen to pass by the television when my wife is checking the weather or something, or I’m trapped in an office or business where the television is on some news channel, I’m struck by the dearth of Whites onscreen, especially White males. Even the wannabe actresses that used to dominate the screen at every network, are becoming scarce. When a hot girl can’t become a Victoria’s Secret model any longer, because they’re pushing “Plus” size acceptance, what are they supposed to do? Well, there’s always Only Fans.

Read the Whole Article

The post Where Do All the White People Work? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recent data reveal a startling decline in childhood vaccination rates, with kindergarten coverage now dropping to about 92 %, far below the 95 % threshold needed for herd immunity.

Exemptions have increased to 3.6% nationwide, and more than half the states experienced declines in coverage for MMR, DTaP, polio, and varicella for the 2024-25 school year. Meanwhile, measles cases have reached a 33-year high, along with a disturbing rise in whooping cough cases, more than doubling in 2025 compared to the previous year.

Why are parents becoming more skeptical of routine childhood vaccinations?

The core reason is trust, with trust eroding so deeply that it may become permanent.

That erosion directly results from government actions, missteps, and malevolence during the COVID era. Health authorities at the local, state, and national levels imposed mandates and restrictions on a whim, based on political rather than medical science. They broadcast a cascade of contradictory messages that shattered the public’s faith in health institutions. Let’s review some of these failures.

First, masks, mandates, and COVID origins. These were the initial cracks in the foundational credibility of medical institutions.

The sudden implementation of lockdowns, the flip-flopping on mask effectiveness during the pandemic, and the insistence on mandates created an environment where government directives felt coercive and punitive rather than consultative and altruistic.

Americans who were told that lockdowns were only temporary (remember “15 days to slow the spread”) and then saw those same lockdowns extended multiple times felt proud to comply.

However, much of the public grew increasingly uneasy as scientific explanations kept changing week after week. That growing unease planted doubt, even among those who initially followed orders, which spread beyond just the immediate COVID pandemic.

Liquor stores and strip clubs could stay open, but churches and schools could not. Big Box stores stayed open while small businesses closed. Going into a building without a mask was a super spreader event, while marching with thousands of unmasked protesters was considered safe.

Second, confusion about COVID vaccines with declining confidence in government proclamations. Starting with the jabs. Despite initial hopes, vaccine messaging remained unclear, including claims about efficacy, mandates, and the need for boosters upon boosters.

We were told that if we took the experimental gene therapy (vaccine), we would neither catch nor spread COVID. President Biden promised (lied), “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Yet, we saw our fully vaccinated friends and family repeatedly get COVID.

A Cleveland Clinic study confirmed that more vaccine doses were linked to a higher rate of COVID infection.

Parents watched as health agencies revised their safety statements. Talk of long-term adverse effects, including myocarditis, blood clots, and aggressive cancers, was initially dismissed, only to be quietly investigated and confirmed.

Meanwhile, the VAERS system was misused in public forums to tally raw adverse event reports without proper context, fueling fears instead of easing them. This fostered an environment of understandable parental hesitation that went beyond COVID shots to include routine childhood immunizations.

Third was the misinformation feedback loop and the government’s woefully inadequate response.

While many blame social media disinformation, it’s important to see that misinformation thrived where institutional trust had fallen. Nature abhors a vacuum. Health authority statements, echoed by a pharmaceutical-supported corporate media, created the gap that social media and independent journalists stepped into.

Social media’s echo chambers amplified anti-vaccine stories. Many tales and conspiracy theories, some used as clickbait and others proven true, eroded trust in the “official narrative”.

Physicians and scientists questioning the new situational science were threatened with losing their jobs or licenses, just as I was in the early COVID days.

Yet the government’s approach remained reactive, debunking rumors instead of building trust, and repeating talking points rather than acknowledging uncertainty. In many communities, especially rural or lower-income areas, access to trusted local medical voices was already limited, and pandemic-era messaging only widened that gap.

Read the Whole Article

The post COVID Government Misinformation and Childhood Vaccination Rates appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday, New York Times podcaster, Ezra Klein, produced the most mendacious piece of Times reporting since Judith Miller persistently lied about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Gates made the presentation around the same time that Anthony Fauci and a couple of his colleagues at the NIH published an academic paper (not reported by the New York Times) titled Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses in which they made the following true assertion:

Non-systemic respiratory viruses such as influenza viruses, SARS- CoV-2, and RSV tend to have significantly shorter incubation peri- ods and rapid courses of viral replication. They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue . . . and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others. . . . Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.

Fauci et al. published this paper in January 2023, but the reality they present had long been understood by serious immunologists.

Long before I read Fauci’s paper, the distinguished Australian immunologist, Robert Clancy (emeritus professor of immunology, University of Newcastle) explained this reality to me over dinner one evening in Arlington, Texas.

In other words, the entire mRNA COVID-19 vaccine program was a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the entire human race.

I hereby call upon Ezra Klein, David Wallace-Wells, and Rachael Bedard to STOP LYING to their audiences. Lying is a terrible habit that warps, distorts, and obscures reality. It is especially dreadful and unbecoming of people who work for influential mass media outlets like the New York Times.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Focal Points newsletter. Needless to say, you will not find this kind of investigative scholarship and reporting in the mainstream media, and it requires a great deal of time an effort.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Ezra Klein (NY Times) Keeps Lying About mRNA Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.

The saga of American slavery has more holes in it than the Zionist saga of the Holocaust.  

Recently President Trump wondered about the woke Smithsonian Institute’s fixation on slavery as if it was the principal problem the world faces today.  The liberal media had a hissy fit.  CNN rushed to do a program on slavery, the woke rectification for which is multiculturalism and the replacement of the white racist population by people of color. This is the political agenda of the Democrat Party. To watch white people so determined to achieve their own destruction by voting Democrat is amazing.

The response made by those critical of CNN’s attack on white Americans was that slavery was a matter of the distant past, and we made amends for our responsibility in a civil war.

What nonsense.  No American ever had any responsibility for slavery.  The black King of Dahomey did.

Here are the undeniable, indisputable, basic facts:

Over the course of history far more white people have been slaves than blacks.  Some of these white slaves were held by Romans and other conquerors in ancient times.  Most were held by people of color who raided Europe’s Mediterranean coast for slaves.  Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the US (1801-1809) had to send the US Navy and Marines to “the shores of Tripoli” to stop the North Africans from capturing American ships and enslaving their passengers and crews.

In the New World (Caribbean Islands, North and South America) European colonists found abundant resources but no labor force. British and European sea captains saw a business opportunity in purchasing slaves from the black King of Dahomey and selling them to the colonists as a labor force.  The black King of Dahomey conducted annual slave wars against other blacks and sold the surplus to Arabs and to European sea captains. 

No white colonist in what later became the United States ever enslaved a black person.  They purchased blacks already enslaved by the black King of Dahomey.

When the United States came into existence in the late 18th century, slavery was an inherited institution.  Slavery existed as the labor force for large agricultural plantations, the agri-businesses of  the time.  The plantations using slave labor did not enslave the slaves. They purchased already enslaved labor as no work force was available.

In the United States slavery was doomed as the frontier closed.  Slavery had a long life because white immigrants who entered America could avoid becoming agricultural labor by moving west and occupying land to which the native Americans had use rights but not ownership rights as understood in Western law. Thus the native inhabitants could be dispossessed. 

As the constant stream of immigrant-invaders, such as the US and Europe are experiencing today, continued, the Indian lands were settled by the immigrant-invaders and the frontier closed by 1890.  Slavery could not have existed beyond that date and, in fact, could not have lasted that long. Slavery was costly compared to the wages of free labor.

Slavery was an expensive labor force.  In 19th century America a male field hand cost $1,500.  If a slave had blacksmith or carpenter skills, he cost $2,000.  The price of a slave was three to four times the annual income of a skilled white man such as a blacksmith. Moreover, a slave, if he was to be productive, needed sufficient food, housing, and medical care.  Moreover, he required respect and appreciation,

Many of the slaves were warriors captured in the black King of  Dahomey’s slave wars. They were experienced fighters and had to be treated with respect.  For a white plantation owner to be surrounded by a large number of black men and for him to expect them to work required his respect and proper treatment of his labor force in which he had a large investment.   Propaganda such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin was northern war propaganda against the South. A few issues back, the City Journal posed the question of who was in charge of a rice or sugar plantation in the Caribbean when the one white owner, the only white on the premises, had a work force of 50 black men. The idea that it was customary to whip black warriors and to rape their wives is farfetched.

We certainly know that Uncle Tom’s Cabin is nothing but propaganda.  How do we know?  Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had zero response.  Falsely portrayed by dishonest and corrupt historians as “the freeing of the slaves,” Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” was a war measure that Lincoln hoped would produce a slave rebellion, thus draining Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia of troops who would rush home to defend their women and children left at the mercy of the slaves.  No such threat materialized to the women and children, and no Southern troops left the lines.  The enslaved blacks were protective of the otherwise unprotected white women and children and did not revolt.  There was no racist hate on a Southern plantation. Many of the plantation overseers were black slaves.

 There is no such thing as the American Civil War.  A civil war is when two groups fight for control of the government.  The Southern states had no interest in the government in Washington.  The Southern states withdrew from the US and formed the Confederate States of America.  The war resulted from Lincoln invading an independent country with the intention of exploiting it economically with the Morrill Tariff.

Why did Lincoln start a war by invading an independent country?  The answer is that Lincoln was determined that the Southern states, an agricultural society, would pay for northern industrialization by paying the Morrill Tariff that would keep out British goods and leave the protected market to Northern manufactures at the expense of the South’s pocketbook.

Both sides understood that the issue was the tariff, not slavery. The Southern states wanted to secede on Constitutional grounds so that Lincoln would not have a Constitutional case for declaring the Southern states to be in rebellion and use force.  Under the US Constitution slavery was a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Lincoln himself said that he had no intention of abolishing slavery and no power to do so.  It was the opposite for tariffs.  The Constitution gave the federal government the power to enact tariffs.  Tariffs were not a right reserved for states. To have Constitutional grounds for secession, the Southern states emphasized slavery in their secession documents. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, required the return of runaway slaves.  Some Northern states did not comply.  Their non-compliance gave the Southern states the argument that the North had broken the Constitutional agreement.

President Lincoln said repeatedly that the war against “the rebels” was to collect the tariff, not to abolish slavery. The Morrill Tariff was passed two days before Lincoln’ inauguration. (The Morrill Tariff passed in March 1961, imposed a tariff of 47%, and established a policy of high protectionism in American industry that would last for decades.)  The same Congress, without the South, also passed a guarantee to the South that if they stayed in the Union and paid the tariff, the US government would guarantee the existence of slavery in perpetuity.  They would put it in the Constitution that slavery could not be abolished even by Constitutional amendment. Lincoln endorsed the promise. 

For the Southern states the tariff was the issue, so they did not take up Lincoln’s offer that they pay the tariff in exchange for the protection of slavery.

The slavery explanation of the war was invented by dishonest northern historians who wanted to cover up Union war crimes by giving the war a moral justification.

On the sea coast of the country once known as Dahomey, there is a memorial to the black slaves sold into the New World by the black King of Dahomey.  It consists of an arch symbolizing the passage of hundreds of thousands of captives from Dahomey’s slave wars into slavery abroad. Do you suppose anyone with a degree in black studies knows this?  Or any Western journalist? Or any white liberal?  Certainly the indoctrinated at CNN do not know it.

Western history is so falsified against the white ethnic peoples of the West that they face dangers of which they are unaware.  The people in the West are a people deserted  by their own white intellectuals.

The purpose of all the propaganda about slavery and white racism is to put the majority population over a barrel so that they cannot defend themselves from demonization, exploitation, and a diminution of their rights.  It reaches ridiculous heights.  People who have never owned a slave are said to owe reparations to people who have never been a slave.  Indeed, white people, especially heterosexual white males, have been paying reparations for 60 years in the form of “affirmative action.”  “Affirmative action” is the policy of restricting access of qualified whites to university admission, employment, and promotion in order that lesser qualified blacks could be advanced. Many qualified white men were prevented from obtaining the benefit of an Ivy League network so that it could be handed to less qualified blacks.  They were denied jobs and promotions so that less qualified blacks could be advanced.

The official discrimination against merit reached a new high in the Biden regime’s DEI policy.  Corporations joined in.  Gillette, Bud Light, and other companies ran national advertisements demonizing white American men. Starbucks announced that its policy was not to hire or promote white males, and the stupid white males still flock to Starbucks to pay $6 for a coffee.  White males in America have grown so accustomed to discrimination that they don’t even complain.

In America, discrimination that is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been the policy of the US government and US corporations for 60 years,

And the blacks want more reparations. How can a people who have accepted their own demonization resist?

The post A Lesson on Slavery for CNN appeared first on LewRockwell.

The (former) President Zelenski of Ukraine is refusing any compromise in negotiations with Russia. He would be killed and replaced by a more right wing figure if he would consider otherwise.

In a speech on Sunday marking Ukraine’s independence Zelenski insisted of recapturing all of Ukraine including Crimea.

As the Washington Post summarizes (archived):

In Kyiv on Sunday, Ukraine’s Independence Day, Zelensky addressed the nation and vowed to restore its territorial integrity.

“Ukraine will never again be forced in history to endure the shame that the Russians call a ‘compromise,’” he said. “We need a just peace.”

He listed some of the regions occupied by Russia — including Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea — and said “no temporary occupation” could change the fact that the land belongs to Ukraine.

Zelenski thus rejects calls by U.S. President Trump to give up Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace.

One reason why he does so may be the personal danger he is in. Any compromise about territory may well cost his life.

The London Times continues to make propaganda for Nazis. After a recent whitewashing interview with Azov Nazi leader Biletsky (archived) it yesterday published an interview with the former leader of the fascist Right Sector in Odessa Serhii Sterneneko.

‘Russia has repeatedly tried to kill me — I must be doing something right’ (archived)

Sterneneko had a leading role in the 2014 massacres in Maidan Square and at the Trade Union’s House in Odessa. The Times is whitewashing his participation in those events. It does not mind to publish his threats against Zelenski:

[A]mong Ukraine’s younger generation of soldiers and civilians, Sternenko’s brand of truth to power has wide popularity. “I say what I think, and people like what I say.”

His views on President Putin’s demand for Ukraine to cede the territory it defends in the eastern Donbas region as a precondition for possible peace are typically direct. “If [President] Zelensky were to give any unconquered land away, he would be a corpse — politically, and then for real,” Sternenko said. “It would be a bomb under our sovereignty. People would never accept it.”

Sternenko, who himself has avoided the draft, wants the war to go on forever:

Indeed, as he discussed Russian intransigence and President Trump’s efforts to end the war, Sternenko’s thoughts on the possibility of peace appeared to be absent of any compromise over Ukrainian soil.

“At the end there will only be one victor, Russia or Ukraine,” he said. “If the Russian empire continues to exist in this present form then it will always want to expand. Compromise is impossible. The struggle will be eternal until the moment Russia leaves Ukrainian land.”

Other British media continue to promote the rise of Nazi affiliated figures in Ukraine. The Guardian adds by promoting the presidential campaign of the former Ukrainian general and now ambassador to the UK Valeri Zaluzhny:

In private conversations, Zaluzhnyi has not confirmed he plans to go into politics, but he has allowed himself to speculate on what kind of platform he could propose if he does make the decision. Those close to him say he sees Israel as a model, despite its current bloody actions in Gaza, viewing it as a small country surrounded by enemies and fully focused on defence.

He would style himself as a tough, wartime leader who would promise “blood, sweat and tears” to the Ukrainian people in return for saving the nation, channelling Winston Churchill. In one private conversation, he said: “I don’t know if the Ukrainian people will be ready for that, ready for these tough policies.”

A day before being fired as the commander of the Ukrainian army Zaluzhny took a selfie with the leader of the fascist Right Sector and commander of Right Sector brigade of Ukrainian military in front of a portrait of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and the fascist OUN flag.

bigger

The picture was already part of his campaign to become the leader of a Bandera-ized Ukraine.

It seems that the British deep-state does its best to support him in that.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine – Zelenski Rejects Giving Land as Fascists Promise To Kill Him appeared first on LewRockwell.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve been sold a bill of goods.”

“And the bill of goods was called multiculturalism.”

So said liberal evolutionary biologist, researcher, ex-academic, and now podcaster and commentator Brett Weinstein. He made his comments recently during a very intellectual discussion with famed clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, part of which was posted Friday to the latter’s YouTube channel. And the two men essentially issued a warning, albeit in the most highbrow tone. To wit:

Multiculturalism threatens Western civilization itself by prioritizing differences (read: diversity) over unity. If it is not “canceled,” the West very well may be.

The Multi-cult

The video clip opens with Weinstein, brother of famed mathematician and podcaster Eric Weinstein, expounding upon that “bill of goods.” He stated that the

problem with multiculturalism is that it sounds like something that those of us who like to interact with people from many different cultures should appreciate. But it’s in fact the opposite of … the value that we actually hold. The value that we actually hold I would call Western cosmopolitanism…. Multiculturalism is the idea that people should not join our societies, but they should maintain their own traditions in an isolated pocket, and that we should effectively reject the idea of becoming one people in the West.

At this point, Peterson interjected and pointed out that this ideology ignores

the fact that if you bring people together and reduplicate the situation of the world at large with no uniting meta-narrative … you also bring in all of the conflict.

Put simply, and as has been said, bring enough of “there” here, and here becomes there. For example, import the Third World, become the Third World.

By Bread Alone?

Peterson went on to say that this multiculturalist error is “fueled by … an underlying materialism.” He continued:

So maybe the notion is, if you bring diverse people from all over the world regardless of their culture and you provide them with sufficient economic opportunity — given that conflict is driven fundamentally by economic need, let’s say, or economic differences — that that will just vanish somehow, magically.

What’s generally unsaid is that this is a Marxist idea. The late Pope Benedict XVI addressed this phenomenon, in fact, when critiquing Karl Marx. He pointed out that the latter’s mistake was his viewing of man as a purely economic being. That is, human behavior is explainable, and problems remediable, the thinking goes, solely via an economic approach. (E.g., the communist notion that simply eliminating economic inequality will end human strife).

Yet man is not driven just by economics, important though that is. He also has intellectual, emotional, psychological, moral, and spiritual dimensions. Moreover, the Truth appears precisely the opposite of the Marxist thesis. Just consider, for example, that terrorist Osama bin Laden was worth approximately $30 million.

And why does the saying “An idle mind is the Devil’s workshop” exist? Why does the Chinese proverb inform, “When there’s food on the table there are many problems. When there’s no food on the table, there’s only one problem”? Answer:

Freeing man from economic stress, which is a good thing to do, also frees him up to fixate on other troubles, real or imagined. Know here that Karl Marx himself came from a well-to-do home. Had he needed to toil in the fields sunup to sunset just to subsist, it’s doubtful he’d have co-written The Communist Manifesto.

A Proposition Nation?

Weinstein also outlined two factors he believes drive human collaboration: genetic relatedness (kinship) and reciprocity (mutual benefit). The West’s strength, he asserted, lies in prioritizing reciprocity. This results in diverse individuals working together for shared wealth and progress. In contrast, kin-based systems limit collaboration, he averred.

Weinstein credits the Founders for this reciprocal standard, too. They created a framework that minimized advantages based on lineage, he essentially said, facilitating said collaboration.

Weinstein painted even more broadly as well, stating that

what we call the West, I believe, is most fundamentally about the agreement to put aside our lineages and collaborate because there is wealth to be produced.

United States of Money?

Peterson appeared to place greater emphasis on the importance of that “meta-narrative,” however. And I would, too, take issue with Weinstein’s interpretation of the West’s fundamentals. The reality is that during the West’s rise and heyday, its countries certainly had a sense of being a “national family.” For example, Briton G.K. Chesterton wrote in the early 1900s about how, sure, his countrymen might have their disagreements. But at the end of the day, they would always be “English.”

Then there were the sentiments expressed by founder John Adams in a July 1815 letter to Thomas Jefferson.

“The consanguinity [relationship based on common lineage] of our politics and our religion has been our great advantage,” he wrote. “It has made us one people, united in sentiment and in affection, as well as in interest and in destiny.”

Adams explained that this consanguinity was instrumental in our Revolutionary War victory and a significant bulwark of our new nation. He contrasted this with challenges more diverse lands faced.

In reality, though, the U.S. was never about prioritizing or ignoring old ethnic identities.

It was, during its most sober moments, about forging a new, common “ethnic” identity: American.

President Theodore Roosevelt emphasized this, do note, in his famous 1915 “no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism” speech.

Unfortunately, this now all seems a bit quaint, as hyphenating oneself is the norm today — even among patriots.

Diversity in Confusion

Regarding other matters, Weinstein also mentioned, innocently, that it’s “not a question” in America of “what God” you pray to. It is true, too, that this has no bearing on your constitutional rights.

But what God we pray to will have a major bearing on whether we’ll keep them.

As I explained in “The Acceptance Con” (2013), a people’s theistic orientation influences their conception of right and wrong.

Speaking of which, multiculturalism is also a corollary of, and a Trojan horse for, moral relativism (explained here). This may be its most dangerous aspect, in fact.

Lastly, there’s another kind of cultural divide in America, one that also has a “multicultural” effect: the homegrown philosophical divide. For instance, “liberals” and “conservatives” are now so different that they could be conceived as distinct and incompatible cultural groups.

The bottom line is that a common culture leads to having a common country. A thoroughly “multicultural” land can be held together — but only through the iron fist of tyranny.

For those interested, the Peterson/Weinstein discussion is below.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Liberal Ex-college Professor: ‘We’ve Been Sold a Bill of Goods … Called Multiculturalism’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post US Stake In Intel Is A Very Bad Idea appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

The post Migrants in Dresden harass women on the tram, then slash an American man’s face open as he tries to intervene appeared first on LewRockwell.

TERROR OUT OF ZION – IRGUN ZVAI LEUMI, LEHI, AND THE PALESTINE UNDERGROUND, 1929-1949 .pdf

“We fight, therefore we are.” This revision of Cartesian wisdom was enunciated by the late premier of Israel, Menachim Begin. It is the leitmotif of this brilliant study of the military origins of modern Israel. J. Bowyer Bell argues that the members of Irgun, Lehi (the Stern Gang), and the Zionist underground in British mandated Palestine had clear motives for the violent path they took: the creation of a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people in oppressed lands. These advocates of terror pitted themselves against not only the British and the Arabs, but also against less violent brethren like Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Yitzhak Rabin.

“This is the definitive story of desperate, dedicated revolutionaries who were driven to conclude that lives must be taken if Israel were to live. The dynamite bombing of the King David Hotel, the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo, and Count Bernardotte, in Palestine were but a few acts of terror which forced the British out of the Middle East. TERROR OUT OF ZION evaluates whether these acts were extremist or necessary, and whether these men and women were fanatics or freedom fighters.

“TERROR OUT OF ZION serves as a primer for those who would understand contemporary political divisions in Israel. It is based on careful historical research and interviews with surviving members of the Irgun, chronicling bombings, assassinations, hah- breadth prison escapes, and endless cycles of retaliation in the terror that gave birth to Israel, but, no less, continues to inform its political relations. Bell has fashioned an adventure story that also explains the sources of current tensions and frictions within Israel.”

Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question

Lenni Brenner, Zionism In the Age of the Dictators

Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir

(The original German version of the infamous proposal for collaboration between the Stern Gang and the Nazis)
(Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine
(Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany)

Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis

Ralph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism

Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel

Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?

Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement — 25th Anniversary Edition: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine

and John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.

The post Terror Out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestine Underground, 1929-1949 appeared first on LewRockwell.