Lew Rockwell Institute

Medicine is strongly biased towards adopting biochemical models of disease as this facilitates costly therapeutics being developed for each disease and hence sustains the medical industry. Unfortunately, in many cases, the biochemical approach to disease, at best can manage symptoms, and as a result, many conditions remain “incurable” while non-patentable natural therapies that can cure them languish in obscurity.

That’s why, despite spending an ever increasing amount of money on Alzheimer’s research (e.g., the NIH spent 2.9 billion in 2020 and 3.9 billion in 2024), we’ve still failed to make any real progress on the disease. This is particularly remarkable given the vast costs to the country (e.g., last year Alzheimer’s was estimated to cost the United States 360 billion dollars) and the even greater social costs that accompany it.

The Amyloid Juggernaut

In 1906, plaques (of amyloid) in the brain were identified as the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. As the years have gone by, the majority of research for treating Alzheimer’s disease has been targeted at eliminating these plaques. Unfortunately, to quote a 2022 article:

Hundreds of clinical trials of amyloid-targeted therapies have yielded few glimmers of promise, however; only the underwhelming Aduhelm has gained FDA approval. Yet Aβ still dominates research and drug development. NIH spent about $1.6 billion on projects that mention amyloids in this fiscal year, about half its overall Alzheimer’s funding. Scientists who advance other potential Alzheimer’s causes, such as immune dysfunction or inflammation, complain they have been sidelined by the “amyloid mafia.” Forsayeth says the amyloid hypothesis became “the scientific equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System,” in which the Sun and planets rotate around Earth.

Note: frequently, when a faulty paradigm fails to explain the disease it claims to address, rather than admit the paradigm is flawed, its adherents will label each conflicting piece of evidence as a paradox (e.g., the French “paradox” disproves the notion cholesterol causes heart disease4) and dig deeper and deeper until they can find something to continue propping up their ideology (e.g., cholesterol reducing statins provide almost no benefit for heart disease while having significant side effects yet continue being pushed on patients).

The consistent failure of the amyloid model to cure Alzheimer’s gradually invited increasing skepticism towards it, which resulted in more and more scientists studying alternative models of the disease. Before long, they found other factors played a far more significant role in causing the disease (e.g., chronic inflammation), and by 2006, this perspective appeared poised to change the direction of Alzheimer’s research.

In response, the amyloid proponents pivoted to defending their failed hypothesis was due not to amyloid clumps, bath rather toxic parts of it (oligomers) and a Nature 2006 paper appeared which identified a previously unknown toxic oligomer, Aβ*56, and provided proof that it caused dementia in rats.

This paper cemented both the amyloid beta and toxic oligomer hypotheses (as it provided the proof many adherents to the theory had been waiting for) and rapidly became one of the most cited works in the field of Alzheimer’s research. Its authors rose to academic stardom, produced further papers validating their initial hypothesis, and billions more were invested by both the NIH and the pharmaceutical industry in research of the amyloid and toxic oligomer hypothesis.

It should be noted that some were skeptical of their findings and likewise were unable to replicate this data, but rarely had a voice in the debate:

The spotty evidence that Aβ*56 plays a role in Alzheimer’s had [long] raised eyebrows. Wilcock has long doubted studies that claim to use “purified” Aβ*56. Such oligomers are notoriously unstable, converting to other oligomer types spontaneously. Multiple types can be present in a sample even after purification efforts, making it hard to say any cognitive effects are due to Aβ*56 alone, she notes—assuming it exists. In fact, Wilcock and others say, several labs have tried and failed to find Aβ*56, although few have published those findings. Journals are often uninterested in negative results, and researchers can be reluctant to contradict a famous investigator.

The Amyloid Scandal

At the end of 2021, a neuroscientist physician was hired by investors to evaluate an experimental Alzheimer’s drug and discovered signs that its data consisted of doctored Western Blots (and therefore erroneous assessments of what oligomers were present within research subjects’ brains). As he explored the topic further, he discovered other papers within the Alzheimer’s literature had been flagged for containing doctored Western Blots.
Note: Western blots, used to test for proteins, are one of the few easily detectable forms of research fraud (e.g., we discovered Pfizer submitted fake Western blots to regulators to “prove” their vaccine worked). Regrettably, far more undetectable fraud exists throughout the scientific literature (e.g., independent researchers comparing regulatory submissions discovered Pfizer also submitted doctored data on where the COVID vaccine is distributed in the body).

Before long, the neuroscientist noticed three of those suspect papers had been published by the same author and decided to investigate the author’s other publications. This led him to the seminal 2006 Alzheimer’s publication, which contained clear signs of fraud.

As investigation then uncovered 20 doctored papers written by the author, 10 of which pertained to Aβ*56 (along with a co-researcher attesting to earlier scientific misconduct by the author).

The Amyloid Industry

One of the remarkable things about this monumental fraud was how little was done about it. For example, the NIH was notified in January 2022, yet in May 2022, beyond nothing being done, the NIH gave the suspect researcher a coveted $764,792 research grant (signed off by another one of the authors of the 2006 paper).

In July 2022, Science published an article exposing the incident and the clear fraud that had occurred. Despite this, the researcher was allowed to remain in his position as a tenured medical school professor. It was not until June 2024 that the 2006 article was retracted at the request of the authors—all of whom denied being at fault and insisted the doctored images had not affected the article’s conclusions. Eventually, on January 29, 2025, during his confirmation hearing, RFK cited the paper as an example of the institutional fraud and wasted tax dollars within the NIH, and a few days later, the suspect researcher announced his resignation from the medical school professorship (while still maintaining his innocence).

This odd behavior (e.g., the medical field continues to insist the proven fraud has not disproven the Amyloid hypothesis) likely results from how much money is at stake—beyond the research dollars, roughly 7 million adults have Alzheimer’s—equating to hundreds of billions in potential (Medicare funded) sales each year.

The Failed Amyloid Drugs

Recently, a monoclonal antibody that made immune cells target amyloid demonstrated limited success in treating Alzheimer’s—which was embraced as revolutionary by the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and drug regulators. In turn, the first new drug received accelerated approval (which the FDA proudly announced). The second then received a quiet backdoor approval (due to the immense controversy surrounding the first), and the third was partially approved a year and a half later.

Each year, JP Morgan (Chase Bank) hosts a private conference for pharmaceutical investors that sets the tone for the entire industry. In 2023, its focus (covered in detail here) was on the incredible profitability of the new Alzheimer’s drugs and the GLP-1s like Ozempic (which the FDA has also relentlessly promoted). Most remarkably, the (widely viewed as corrupt) FDA commissioner was a keynote speaker, and a few days before the conference, had enacted the second backdoor approval.

However, despite the rosy pictures painted around the drugs (which each attacked different aspects of amyloids), they were highly controversial as:

• The FDA’s independent advisory panel, in a very unusual move, voted 10-0 (with one abstaining) against approving Aduhelm, the first amyloid drug (which targeted amyloid plaques), but the FDA approved it anyways. In a highly unprecedented move, three of the advisors then resigned, calling it “probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history.”

• That drug was priced at $56,000 a year—making it sufficient to bankrupt Medicare, (which attracted a Congressional investigation).

• Brain swelling or brain bleeding was found in 41% of patients enrolled in its studies. Additionally, headaches (including migraines and occipital neuralgia), falls, diarrhea, confusion, and delirium were also notably elevated compared to placebo.

• No improvement in Alzheimer’s was noted; rather one analysis found it slowed the progression of Alzheimer’s by 20% (although this could have been a protocol artifact rather than a real effect).

The second monoclonal antibody (which targeted amyloid precursors) had a somewhat better risk benefit profile (only 21% experienced brain bleeding and swelling due to reduced targeting of stable amyloid plaques), and 26.4% reduction in the progression of Alzheimer’s was detected in the trail (which for context, translated to a 0.45 reduction on a scale where a reduction of at least 1-2 points is needed to create an impact which is in anyway meaningful for a patient).

The third monoclonal (which targeted amyloid plaques thought to be more pathologic) was also contested as it caused 36.8% of recipients to develop brain bleeding or swelling, like the other amyloid medications, frequently caused headaches and infusion reactions (e.g., nausea, vomiting, changes in blood pressure, hypersensitive reactions or anaphylaxis) and there were reasons to suspect the trial had greatly overstated its minimal benefits.

Remarkably, despite widespread protest against the third drug, the FDA’s new advisory panel voted unanimously in favor of it, even though it had a very similar mechanism, efficacy, and toxicity to the previously unanimously rejected amyloid drug. It should therefore come as no surprise that, when the British Medical Journal conducted an independent investigation, it found that, within publicly available databases, 9 out of 9 (assessable) members of the advisory committee had significant financial conflicts of interest.

Fortunately, despite the aggressive promotion of amyloid drugs and the industry’s best attempts to promote the sector, the market somewhat recognized how bad they were. The first drug had its price halved (then was withdrawn as no one wanted it—making around 5 million dollars total), while the other two have had very modest sales (e.g., 290 million for the most popular one).

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Isn’t There a Cure for Alzheimer’s Disease? appeared first on LewRockwell.

US President Donald Trump presented the agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping as a great success. The United States will reduce tariffs on Chinese imports by 10 percentage points to 47%. In return, China will resume purchasing US soybeans and postpone restrictions on rare earth exports to the US for one year. In reality, this is a limited and precarious trade truce.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a significant statement before Xi Jinping’s meeting with Donald Trump. Wang Yi warned that ‘a multipolar world is coming,’ urging an end to ‘the politicisation of economic and trade issues, the artificial fragmentation of global markets, and the use of trade wars and tariff battles.’

‘Frequent withdrawal from agreements and failure to honour commitments, while enthusiastically forming blocs and cliques, has subjected multilateralism to unprecedented challenges,’ Wang said, without naming specific countries but clearly referring to the United States.

During the meeting, President Xi Jinping emphasised:

‘China and the United States should be partners and friends. This is what history has taught us and what reality requires.’

The position of the United States is demonstrated by the fact that, a few minutes before the meeting with Xi Jinping, Trump declared that he had ordered the Pentagon to begin nuclear weapons testing ‘on an equal footing’ with China and Russia. In reality, China has not tested nuclear weapons since 1996 and Russia has not tested them since 1990. And although the United States has never ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits the detonation of such weapons, past presidents complied with the Treaty.

On Truth Social, Trump claimed that, in terms of nuclear weapons, Beijing currently ranks third compared to Russia and the United States, but that “within five years, it will be on par with us”. However, Trump failed to mention that China has maintained a limited nuclear arsenal for decades, consisting mostly of medium-range defensive weapons incapable of reaching the United States. Furthermore, it only began producing long-range nuclear weapons after the United States deployed nuclear weapons close to its territory.

At the same time, Trump gave South Korea the green light to build a nuclear-powered submarine, which could be armed with nuclear missiles. The submarine will be built in the United States at a shipyard purchased by a South Korean company in 2024. Australia, through the AUKUS agreement with the United States and Britain, will also be able to acquire nuclear attack submarines clearly directed against China and Russia. In Europe, Ukraine is receiving, through NATO under US command, weapons with ever-increasing range capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory. Before long, weapons of this type will be manufactured directly in Ukraine through “joint production” agreements with NATO defence industries. Ukraine will thus have weapons with dual conventional and nuclear capabilities directed against Russia.

It is no surprise that, in this situation, Russia is producing and testing new types of nuclear delivery systems: the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, capable of striking highly protected targets at any distance, and the Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater vehicle, capable of autonomously reaching enemy coasts and causing a radioactive tsunami with the underwater explosion of a high-powered nuclear warhead. China is also likely to be producing a weapon similar to the Russian Poseidon.

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

The post The Policy of Nuclear Gunships. The U.S. War Department Begins Nuclear Weapons Testing appeared first on LewRockwell.

With every Western country experiencing social collapse from a variety of unaddressed causes, such as the rapid loss of jobs to Artificial Intelligence, exhaustion of environmental and natural resources, feminization’s replacement of the male role with sentiment and destruction of the male/female relationship, the loss of integrity and moral behavior to money, and the aggression inherent in the Zionist Neoconservative doctrine of hegemony, I am going to skip writing for today’s posting another dire assessment of our multitude of unaddressed challenges. 

Instead, remembering my previous essay some time ago about English murder mysteries and the authors, I am returning for this morning’s posting to a civilized time in which all was in control.  In the 1920s and 1930s, Great Britain, despite Sir Edward Grey stupidly involving Britain in World War I, Britain was still a great power in control of the seas and international trade. The British pound was the world currency.  The American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, looked upon British power with envy.

Perhaps Wilkie Collins with his books The Moonstone and The Woman In White was the first English mystery novelist.  But it was Agatha Christie’s 66 murder mysteries, most solved not by the British police but by private detective Hercule Poirot and private citizen, Miss Marple.  With Agatha Christie you get a murder mystery, not a novel full of character development and psychological theories of crime. 

 In my view, Christie’s only rival is Dorothy Sayers.  Her sleuth, Lord Peter Whimsey, is one up on Christie’s super sleuths. Sayers only wrote a few murder mysteries before moving on to serious work. A couple are simply murder mysteries, but a love interest appears.  Lord Peter sees injustice in  the case of Harriet Vane, an Oxford University educated woman living  in sin with a disreputable character who is murdered, for which Harriet is arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death by hanging. Lord Peter takes up her case, proves her innocence, secures her release and spends five years over, if memory serves, two books, until she finally accepts him to the disgust of his sister-in-law the Duchess of Denver.  

Lord Peter, the second son of the Duke of Denver, the richest aristocrat in Britain, is rich by his own ability.  Lord Peter is a favorite of the Foreign Office and is sent everywhere in the world to maintain the British position.  He is the most desirable batchelor in the realm, and he marries what is perceived as an Oxford educated slut.  Remember, this was a century ago before female sexual liberation.

I have always been puzzled by accounts of male promiscuity.  Sexual intercourse between heterosexuals requires a male and a female.  If only males are libertines, who do they have affairs with?

But to get back on track. Once Harriet Vane appears, Sayers’ murder mysteries become also the development of the relationship between Lord Peter and Harriet.  And more subject matter enters.  Whey Sayers places a murder in an advertising, or perhaps it was a publishing, corporation, she first goes to the trouble of learning how these businesses operate.  In what I think is her mystery masterpiece, The Nine Tailors, she first masters the art of bell ringing.  So, a Sayers mystery can be more rewarding that a Christie mystery as it is a richer tale, not just a murder mystery.

My delight in the books is not the murders.  Indeed, I can reread many times Christe’s mysteries, because I don’t remember the plots.  Wondering about my memory, I realized that I don’t read the books for the mysteries.  I read them in order to escape current reality into a civilize time.  

One wonders if the picture of police behavior in the mystery novels is correct.  I assume it is, because the writers are addressing audiences in their own time and cannot present them with a fantasy.  The police are very restrained not only by their own behavior but by what the suspects will accept from the police. Politeness and respect for privacy rule.  Police have to be very careful in their questioning not to be impertinent. When have you last heard that word used?  Do you know what it means?  It means not showing proper respect. The police do not merely want a suspect with which, guilty or innocent, to close the case.  The police only want the one who is guilty. Today they could not care less.  They just want cases closed. The prosecutor just wants another conviction. The judge just wants a clear docket.

It is so different from today when suspects are browbeat both by their attorney and by the prosecutor to accept a plea bargain, whether innocent or guilty, that quickly disposes of the case, gives the prosecutor another conviction, and keeps the judge’s court docket free.

The limits on the police in the British mystery novels of the 1920s and 1930s are unbelievable today.  So is the behavior of characters in the story who refuse to help the police because it would require them to diverge a confidence.  Imagine the contrast with today when no one can wait to incriminate someone else.

My conclusion is that I wish I had been born long ago and had passed on before our uncivilized time.  Sitting at night reading before bed, I wonder at the civilized world that is lost to us.

The post The World That Was appeared first on LewRockwell.

Revolutions are funny things. They start out almost imperceptible. The final straw itself may be as inconsequential as a single voice in the crowd whose words unleash a tidal wave that sweeps aside the seemingly intractable old order forever.

Even as the cracks in the Eastern Bloc began to materialize in 1989, starting in June in Hungary, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu’s Romania seemed impervious to the winds of change. They maintained a cult-like grip on power aided by the notorious and ubiquitous Securitate, the secret police.

On 21 December 1989 Ceausescu decided that the best way to quell a bubbling cauldron of unrest in Transylvania over the past several weeks was to appear, himself, with his wife Elena, above Bucharest’s Palace Square. Workers were bussed in and given red banners to wave in support of the regime. It was to be a show of force that would solidify the existing order.

After all, no one would dare challenge Ceausescu to his face.

As he confidently approached the microphone from the balcony and began mechanically repeating the tired old slogans of communism, suddenly a voice broke through with a high pitched scream, followed by an increasing din. The discordant sounds of protest rendered Ceausescu speechless and confused.

That second, when the false edifice of his rule was punctured and the impossibility of his position exposed, communist rule died in Romania.

America’s foreign policy has been a lot like the rule of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Since President Reagan opened the door to the gang of “former” Trotskyites from New York who were hell bent on worldwide revolution while being ideologically driven by their absolute devotion to the state of Israel, US foreign policy has been dominated by an equivalent of Ceausescu’s Partidul Comunist Român.

Anyone who attempted to challenge the neocon dominance over US foreign policy was drummed out of society by the equivalent of Ceausescu’s Securitate. One by one, Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, the John Birch Society, Ron Paul, and any voice raised in opposition to neocon dominance over foreign policy was brutally attacked by the likes of William F. Buckley, Jr. and his minions of enforcers in the media and the think tanks, and the corridors of power and influence.

Trotsky is reputed – perhaps apocryphally – to have said that, “to oppose the state is to die a slow starvation,” and that is certainly true for any foreign policy analyst over the past 40-plus years who has spoken out against neocon dominance. No jobs, no publications, no way to be heard or even exist.

But suddenly that Berlin Wall has fallen.

Future history may record America’s “Ceausescu Moment” as November 6th, 2025.

The same mainstream/”alt” media and conservatism-industrial-complex that has refused to acknowledge Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s sharp turn against neocon, pro-Israel foreign policy have done their best to harness and re-direct the Charlie-less TPUSA back onto the foreign policy reservation. With a doubting Charlie conveniently gone, they assumed they could ascend the “Palace Square Bucharest” balcony, grab the microphone, and return America’s conservative youth to the “wisdom” of Bill Kristol, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Mark Levin, and the rest of the blood-soaked dinosaurs.

However our own “high-pitched scream” that deflated Ceausescu came on November 6th not from a Mamdani “communist,” or from an “America-hating,” Muslim, nor Hamas-devoted foreign student, nor tortured trans-genderist or even a generic leftist.

No, it came from a corn-fed, conservative, earnest, American student at Auburn University in Alabama with the slow drawl of our great country’s 250 year history. In other words, the epitome of the Red, White, and Blue that burns in the soul of every American patriot.

The young man approached the open microphone and addressed President Trump’s son Eric and his wife Laura – ambassadors of the President’s claim to be the most pro-Israel Administration in US history – with a respectful set of questions.

I’d like to ask about your father’s relationship with Israel. He’s taken over $230 million from pro-Israel groups. In the summer even though the US advised against it, Israel attacked Iran and the US still bombed on behalf of Israel…Israel has not been a good ally to the US since the 1960s when they bombed the USS Liberty.

The crowd of CONSERVATIVE young Americans erupted into wild applause.

Israel is a nation where Christians are constantly under attack… We talk about America first and defending Christians, but how can we do this if we align ourselves with a nation that does not do that itself?

At this point the applause among TPUSA’s conservative youth was deafening.

Deer-in-the-headlights Eric Trump does a Ceaucescu, repeating the slogans of the old order and hoping their magic will still quell the restive population.

You have a nation chanting ‘death to America’ every single day on the streets of Tehran. You have a nation that will develop a nuclear weapon and that will use that nuclear weapon.

These are standard Benjamin Netanyahu talking points from 30 years ago. Laura looked like Elena. Arranging her perfect hair as the crowd remained silent at Eric Trump’s well-rehearsed applause lines. Silence. They’ve heard it all before and they have done their own research and know that these are neocon lies.

Guys: Iran wanted to destroy our way of live they wanted to hurt us they wanted to inflict real pain.

Silence. They’ve done their own research.

Eric then repeats the absurd claim that his father solved eight wars (involving countries whose names he cannot pronounce) and the silence continued. The bumper sticker slogans no longer worked with Charlie Kirk’s kids just as Ceaucescu’s slogans no longer worked with a Romania sick to death with it’s subservience to a dying Communist bloc.

This is a genie that can no longer be put back into the bottle. Toothpaste out of the tube. The same social media harnessed early on by the US “regime change” operatives seeking to fulfil the neocon project has been captured by young American conservatives who are revolting against the destructive “Israel-first” party line of their boomer forebears and no underhanded sale of TikTok to pro-Israel fanatics will change the fact.

From this point on, like Ceaucescu, Trump’s people dare not address openly the number one youth movement of their ideological base. They dare not risk stop after stop being questioned by earnest young conservatives about America’s toxic and self-destructive supplication to the state of Israel. They will go back into Nicolae Ceaucescu’s bunker. Terrified of the very “America First” movement they have launched.

Student to Eric and Lara Trump at TPUSA event in Auburn: “I’d like to ask about your father’s relationship with Israel. He’s taken over $230m from pro-Israel groups… Israel hasn’t been a great ally to the US…they bombed the USS Liberty.”

*Crowd erupts in rapturous applause* pic.twitter.com/kDxXuO1Jbm

— Chris Menahan (@infolibnews) November 6, 2025

This article was originally published on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post America’s ‘Ceausescu Moment’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

My younger brother, who lives on Maui, once told me a story about a man from the mainland who had made an astronomical sum of money in the virtual, internet economy. His enormous wealth apparently went to his head, because after becoming a modestly competent surfer, he decided that he wanted to go tow surfing on JAWS—one of the biggest waves on earth.

Tow surfing involves using a surfboard with foot straps and being pulled onto the swell by a wave runner equipped with a waterski tow rope. While top expert surfers have developed the skill and conditioning to paddle onto Jaws, this is extremely difficult due to the enormous swell size and speed.

The “virtual economy” wizard finally persuaded a good wave runner driver to tow him onto a swell at Jaws. The result was catastrophic. Instead of surfing “down the line” of the breaking wave, he ran from it and onto the relatively flat, impact zone in front of the wave. Bad move.

Dead in the water, he then received the full power of the wave’s energy unloading on him, which inflicted catastrophic injuries, including tearing his pectoral muscles. His automatically inflating life vest, plus the great skill of the wave runner driver, saved him from drowning, but his body was beaten to hell.

Greek mythology relates multiple heroes making trips to the Underworld to rescue fathers and friends. In the Christian tradition there is the story of Jesus making a descent to hell to rescue righteous souls. Addicts often speak about “hitting rock bottom” before developing the true resolve to kick their addictions.

Must humans experience great pain to gain a full understanding of their limits and shortcomings?

I recently spent a few hours reviewing the transcripts of President Lyndon Johnson talking with Defense Secretary Robert McNamara about the situation in Vietnam. To a careful reader, it quickly becomes apparent that neither man has the foggiest notion about the country, or what exactly the U.S. military was going to achieve by killing its people.

The following recording of one of their conversations gives a good sense of how totally lost they were.

McNamara is an eggheaded technocrat who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, and Johnson is a cunning Texas redneck who is accustomed to things going his way. I find it astonishing that these fools had at their disposal the power to send the U.S. military to Vietnam to kill people.

To his credit, McNamara was apparently chastened by the failure of Vietnam. He later became a vocal critic of the war and expressed regret in his 1995 memoir, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. He spent the rest of his life writing and speaking on nuclear disarmament, and was the protagonist of the documentary The Fog of War.

George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, John Bolton and other “chickenhawks” were able to avoid military service in Vietnam and therefore the “harrowing of hell” that McNamara experienced, They also didn’t heed the wisdom that McNamara acquired and tried to share with them.

The Washington foreign policy establishment remains infested with the same breed of arrogant nitwits. A bit of time on the front line of combat would do wonders for their hubristic souls.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post The Harrowing of Hell appeared first on LewRockwell.

He wasn’t just aiming to score soft power points but to hint at creative ways in which recent US-endorsed Levantine solutions could be applied to Ukraine in the interests of consistency.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an informative interview to Kommersant in mid-October. Russian international media mostly focused on his remarks about ties with the US, concerns about its potential transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, and the special operation, but he also importantly exposed the US’ double standards towards resolving the Levantine and Ukrainian Conflicts. Here’s exactly what he said, which will then be analyzed in terms of its practical relevance:

“[The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity] emphasizes that the protection of human rights, ensuring security, respect for the dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as tolerance and equal opportunities for all regions, are the keys to the sustainability of the agreement (this declaration). The declaration calls for the eradication of extremism and radicalism in all forms. Golden words. But for some reason, this applies to Palestinians and Israelis, but not to Russians in Ukraine.

More recently, regarding another part of the Middle East, Syria, US Special Representative for Syria (and also US Ambassador to Turkey) Thomas Barrack said that the Syrian Arab Republic needs a system close to a federation that would preserve the culture and language of all ethnic and religious groups in society. This is precisely what the Minsk agreements were about. For some reason, the West is ready to apply these principles everywhere, but in Ukraine, it is ‘not ready.’”

Beginning with the first part, Russia demands Ukraine’s denazification, which requires “the eradication of extremism and radicalism” in all forms there through hybrid kinetic-legal means. The kinetic ones are being advanced through attacks against fascist-inspired Ukrainian militiamen like the Azov Brigade while the legal ones are envisaged as part of the lasting political solution that Putin wants. A similarly symbolic multilateral call as Trump’s declaration could be the first step to that end amidst ongoing negotiations.

As for the second part, Russia won’t cede to Ukraine the disputed regions under its control after their people voted to join Russia in September 2022, but it could demand sub-federative cultural-linguistic rights for the Russians who remain in the Ukrainian-controlled parts if the frontline freezes. To be clear, Russia officially insists that it’ll liberate the entirety of the disputed regions, but the aforesaid Minsk- and Syrian-inspired proposal could facilitate a grand compromise if all sides have the political will.

The relevance of exposing the US’ double standards towards resolving the Levantine and Ukrainian Conflicts therefore isn’t just to score soft power points, but to hint at creative ways in which the aforesaid US-endorsed Levantine solutions could be applied to Ukraine in the interests of consistency. This assumes that the US is interested in policy consistency, but whether right or wrong, it doesn’t detract from Lavrov’s motives in bringing up the policy precedents that the US itself just established.

Realistically speaking, Trump doesn’t seem interested over half a year since the start of his talks with Putin in suddenly acceding to Russia’s proposals on Ukraine since he would have already pressured Zelensky if he was, not escalated his rhetoric and contemplated a military escalation too. Nevertheless, Russia’s continued on-the-ground gains and the predictable failure of Ukraine’s next potential US-backed offensive might get him to reconsider, in which case Lavrov’s implied proposals would become relevant.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Lavrov Exposed the US’ Double Standards Towards Resolving the Levantine & Ukrainian Conflicts appeared first on LewRockwell.

On November 5th, the strategic analyst Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis headlined “America’s Next Civil War: Update #4 (the Blue Wave)” and he documented that when Trump’s psychopathic instruction to Texas to redistrict so as to get more Republicans in Congress broke the American tradition of independent redistricting commissions that were structured to include an even number of members from each of the two largest political parties, it set U.S. politics spiraling out of control, so that when Trump was then asked how many more congressional seats he wanted, he said (at 28:00 in Davis’s video) “5, I think we’ll get 5,” and then when the reporter asked “what if California, New York and other [Democratic] states —“ and he answered (assuming that Democrats are bad and Republicans are good), “Yeah, that’s what they do,” but “there could be other states [on our side], I think that we will get another 3 or 4 or 5 in addition. Texas would be the biggest one.” Then, Davis presented California’s Governor Gavin Newsom saying that because of Republicans now doing redistricting in their states without the fairness-rules that have been traditional, California’s redistricting will likewise be done without rules — just to win regardess of how it will be done, like Trump. It becomes a contest in how psychopathic one can go. Davis’ analysis is that because of the sheer boldness of Trump’s psychopathy, “this kind of behavior is just driving people on either side farther apart.” The result is that more and more Americans think that “there’s no point in following the rule of law,” or custom and tradition — following the established rules. Winning is all that counts now; losers will just be forced to comply with winners. The ‘social contract’ that held society together is gone when such a bold psychopath rules and drives things toward a contest in psychopathy. The state thus becomes privatized, no longer controlled by laws but instead by ‘leaders’ — individual persons — rulers who become rulers by being psychopaths and punishing the losers as much as they want to, since there really are no laws that are then being objectively written and enforced — there is increasingly force used, instead of mutual agreement.

Davis argues convincingly that if Trump keeps failing to such an extent that Democrats defeat him electorily, “it’s only a matter of time before a spark sets something off” even worse than happened on 6 January 2020, when Biden won the White House.

This is coming from Daniel Davis, a retired Lt. Colonel who used to be a Republican but now detests BOTH Parties.

On 6 November 2018, Sarah Pruitt at history dot com headlined “The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart: The Constitution’s framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.” The Founders condemned political Parties because in all existing governmental systems including that of America’s enemy, Britain, Parties were associated with corruption and represented different factions of the aristocracy, not the public — not any sort of democracy. This was all that they knew; and, so, they thought that it is a necessary evil, but it actually isn’t necessary; it is instead necessary only in governmental systems that are structured as contests between clubs (political clubs in this case). In fact, in the United States, political Parties are precisely that: they (both the DNC and the RNC) are private members-only clubs — NOT any part of the public. They are technically IRS Section 527 nonprofit corporations that are composed of their Committee Members who are appointed by their other Committee Members and are consequently a type of self-sustaining private club. Party politics is private, not (as they pretend to be) public, and not technically a part of the government. Not until the 2017 court case Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., dba Democratic National Committee and Deborah Wassrman Schultz, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, was it decided that nothing that a political Party does can be legally challenged by any voters — the people who vote have no legal right to have their votes counted even by ‘their own’ Party; they don’t own it — only its Members do; and ONLY the MEMBERS of the club (in that instance, the DNC or Democratic National Committee) have the power to select that Party’s nominees for public offices — caucuses and political primary elections are merely for show, to pretend to be ‘democratic’ or “republican’. And, in fact, the members of the club represent only that club’s megadonors, who constitute the vast majority of the club’s fundraising. Political Parties are only money-raising organizations and represent only the donors — no voters, none at all — this is what the judge in that landmark case ruled; and a Party may even blatantly violate its own rules, when and if they wish to do so. That judge’s ruling was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which finally ruled on 28 October 2019 that the lower Court had ruled correctly. This is how American Party politics actually functions, nd now we know it for a certainty. So, America’s Founders were right that Parties are associated with corruption, but were wrong that they are necessary in politics. They aren’t. Parties aren’t necessary except in election-based political systems, which inevitably represent only the richest; by contrast, a purely lottery-based political system is totally differant, and is far likelier to produce a Government that actually has the same policy-priorities that the nation’s public do — far likelier to actually represent the public. That’s the answer, but nobody seems interested in it. Maybe if things get even worse as Davis warns could very likely happen, the situation will get sufficiently desperate for people to start looking for an alternative. This one would require only one Amendment to the U.S. Constitutiion. It could be the most important Constitutional Amendment in history.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post America’s Founders Warned Against Political Parties. They Were Right. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Escape from New York is the name of a 1981 film. Now it’s also, many fear, going to be a reality with Mayor-elect Zohran Kwame Mamdani’s impending socialist makeover of NYC. Why, commentator Bill O’Reilly has predicted that his ascendancy will spark an exodus of 765,000-one million Big Apple residents. This, of course, would involve the loss of significant capital.

Yet this is all predicated on the idea that Mamdani’s promises reflect principles more than positions of convenience. And while he is a radical, he’s also a power seeker who surely aspires to higher office. So questions arise:

Will Mamdani go the full socialist monty and risk crashing NYC?

Or will he, being the consummate politician he was on the campaign trail, practice some Machiavellian moderation?

Should he pursue the latter route, he not only will survive politically, but will certainly have a good excuse. “Tyrant Trump and the establishment are standing in the way of progress!” Mamdani will be able to say. “They’re stymieing the people’s agenda!”

(“So I need even more power,” would be the message — “‘governor’ comes to mind.”)

Won’t Lives on Can’t Street?

Mamdani can’t actually build a wall around NYC to keep people in, as was done in the “escape” movie. (It was only around Manhattan in the film.) And unlike Cold War communists, who also kept people captive via a wall, he won’t enjoy absolute power. He’s going to have to play well with others to get things done.

So while USA Today laments that “[n]ow we get to see full-blown socialism in action,” well, maybe, maybe not. Just consider five obstacles confronting Mamdani, according to New York insiders. Politico lists them in this order:

1. “Donald Trump and the Federal Government.”
2. “Legislative Wrangling in Albany.”
3. “Campaign Fatigue” — Democratic NYC mayors usually have leisurely general election campaigns. But Mamdani had to work hard to get elected and now will have to hit the ground running. (Personally, I’m not so sure this matters much.)
4. “Democratic Rifts.”
5. “Plus — No Big Deal — the Job.”

As to the last point, Emperor Tiberius once said that governing Rome was like “holding a wolf by the ears.” If true, well, then managing the Big Apple may at least be like holding a coyote by the ears. Politico elaborates:

The NYC mayor immediately becomes a manager of 300,000 cops, teachers, social workers and so many more. Mamdani will be faced with constant, complex choices — not to mention weathering the controversies and challenges that no one can anticipate, from police shootings to hurricanes to acts of mayhem that fill tabloids.

Promises, Promises — and Realities

Then there’s that legislative wrangling. Mamdani outlined 10 to 12 policy proposals while campaigning, yet he’ll lack the power to effectuate about half of them. As to specificity, here’s a list (according to a Grok AI analysis):

• Proposal — “increase corporate tax rate from 8.85 percent to 11.5 percent.” Reality — set by state law; mayor proposes but can’t enact alone.
• Proposal — “two percent flat tax on millionaires.” Reality — state jurisdiction.
• Proposal — “free buses citywide.” Reality — Metropolitan Transportation Authority (a state entity) controls fares; requires state funding/approval.
• Proposal — “end mayoral control of schools.” Reality — mayoral control is state-granted (expires 2026); changes need legislative renewal.
• Proposal — “free CUNY (City University of NY) tuition for all.” Reality — CUNY funding is state-controlled; city covers approximately 30 percent, but full free tuition requires state match.
• Proposal — “creation of Social Housing Development Authority (SHDA). Reality — involves state capital/financing; mayor can advocate but not establish alone.

In other words, to get any or all of these things done, Mamdani will have to go through the state Legislature and Governor Kathy Hochul. He’ll have to deal with an entrenched political establishment.

Human Wrecking Ball?

This said, Mamdani can still do much damage. First, it appears that some NYC residents will leave just over the threat he poses. Wealthy rapper 50 Cent has reportedly already done so.

Second, Mamdani could spike crime by hamstringing the police (he has promised in the past to defund them). He has vowed to intensify NYC’s “sanctuary” (read: illegal-alien enabling) status. And his rent-freeze plans could actually cause apartments to be taken off the market and thus ultimately increase housing costs. As U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) put it, encapsulating the danger:

He’s called to DEFUND police, ABOLISH prisons, LEGALIZE prostitution, and even attacked Jewish people and American law enforcement in the same breath.

This isn’t just New York’s problem — it’s spreading to cities like Seattle, Minneapolis, and even Congress.

The radical Marxist wing is taking over the Democrat Party — and EVERY American should be alarmed.

The question is again, though: Will Mamdani be socialist or sly? Or will he be both to an extent?

Will He or Won’t He?

For sure, Mamdani is a radical man. He has expressed belief in “seizing the means of production,” a communist tenet. He has paraphrased Karl Marx, saying, “Each according to their need, each according to their ability.” He has also been seen giving the middle finger to a Christopher Columbus statue. And he has threatened to arrest ICE agents and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should they enter NYC’s jurisdiction.

Then there’s the group backing Mamdani and of which he’s a member, the Democratic Socialists of America. It will put pressure on him to deliver on his radical promises. It’s also true that during his victory speech, the mayor-elect didn’t exactly extend an olive branch to foes.

Then again, there’s that power lust. Mamdani is not a dumb man. As mentioned earlier, too, he certainly should realize that crashing NYC would crash his political fortunes.

And he’d have built-in excuses for not implementing his entire agenda. President Donald Trump has, after all, threatened to cut off funding to NYC in response to a Mamdani victory. And then there is that state Democratic machine to contend with. So we can hear it now: “The oligarchs are standing in the way of the revolution!”

For this reason, there’s an argument to be made that perhaps Trump shouldn’t take action against NYC. Make sure the responsibility is all on Mamdani, is the idea.

So what will the socialist mayor do? He is intelligent enough to understand his policies’ risks. Yet as Professor Thomas Sowell has noted, “It doesn’t matter how smart you are if you don’t think.”

If Mamdani’s radicalism-shaped emotional foundation and lack of virtue hold sway, he may crash as he ascended: meteorically. And while this would involve short-term pain, it’s likely the best outcome for NYC and America.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post In Power, Will Mamdani Be Socialist — or Sly? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Back in 2023, all orthodox Catholics of good will heard the news of His Excellency, Bishop Paprocki’s condemnation of heresy in one of the most prominent American journals, First Things. This was ostensibly a condemnation of Cardinal McElroy’s brazen challenge to Catholic moral theology in two pieces (here and here) at America—a connection underlined by Bishop Paprocki’s quoting verbatim from the cardinal’s first article. Nevertheless, His Excellency did say shortly thereafter (on Raymond Arroyo) that he did not want to name names, but had European cardinals also in mind.

Faithful Catholics compare today’s bishops with the saintly bishops of old and they find the former woefully lacking in manly courage. They do not seem to act like men of God should – with zeal, filled with faith and charity.

I am willing to hazard that there are many orthodox bishops out there. But it seems to me that most of those orthodox bishops are cowardly. They think of themselves as “vicars of the Roman Pontiff” (a concept that Vatican II condemned in Lumen Gentium 27), and they are afraid to excommunicate and issue the anathema, as did the saintly bishops of old.

Thanks be to God, this crisis has had one silver lining – it is separating the men from the boys in the episcopate. We thank God for Bishop Paprocki, as well as for Archbishop Cordileone who excommunicated the aiders and abetters of child murder and who was supported by over sixteen other bishops, and for Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who has been continually willing to act like a man of God – with courage and conviction – despite being unceremoniously sacked by Pope Francis.

Less Words, More Action

But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Vatican II crisis it’s this: more talking, statements, and documents do almost nothing to stop the heretic wolves from scattering the flock.

Therefore, I respectfully propose to all bishops the same proposal that the Trad movement has been asking for since 1965: the charitable anathema.

At OnePeterFive we aim to resource and promote the work of our Trad godfathers in the Faith. It was Cardinal Ottaviani who asked all bishops to condemn heresy in 1966, heartily cheered by Archbishop Lefebvre. When Dietrich von Hildebrand met with Paul VI in the summer of 1965 – even before the Council ended – he begged Paul VI for the same thing – the charitable anathema. But the Pontiff thought it “was a bit harsh” and decided against it.[1]

The Case of Notre Dame

One of the worst cases of this fear of taking appropriate action concerned the bishop of South Bend, Indiana, after Notre Dame went into revolt against the Magisterium in the 1960s. The bishop wanted to place the whole university under interdict, but hesitated, waiting for Rome to back him up.

Rome never did, and thousands of American Catholics (and worldwide) were led into heresy by joining in the revolt against Humanae Vitae (and other dogmas of the Faith), led by the heretic wolves at Notre Dame and other so-called “Catholic” institutions.

Indeed, at the judgment day, the bishops of these generations will be judged by Christ, the Good Shepherd, about whether they laid down their life for their sheep, or if they let the heretic wolves destroy the faith of little children, as we have seen happen. For these heretic wolves have torn out altars, held Catholic universities hostage to heresy, and have done nothing less than scourged Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament by their liturgical abuse.

As our contributing editor, Dr. Michael Sirilla shows, St. Thomas himself strongly defended the bishop’s responsibility of excommunicating heretics.[2] This was understood as obligation of charity for the flock.

The sheep cry out, How long, O Lord, wilt thou forget me forever? and the Prophet cries out, Woe to you, Shepherds!

The Only Way Forward: the Charitable Anathema

But let me return to my point: more talking and documents will do nothing. Only action – the action of a man of God – will have any effect.

And that action, we assert – with the whole history of the Church – is the charitable anathema.

As Hildebrand said acutely, pointing to the root of the problem decades ago:

The valuing of unity over truth plays a central role in the crisis of the Church; for the Church of Christ—the Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church—is based on this fundamental principle: the absolute primacy of divine truth, which is the very primacy of God.[3]

This proven solution has always been the answer in times of heretical depravity. Critics of this solution ultimately value unity above truth. They are scared of schism more than they are of error and falsehood. Hildebrand refutes the critics of the anathema with these words, proclaiming that the anathema is itself an act of charity:

… The anathema excludes the one who professes heresies from the communion of the Church, if he does not retract his errors. But for precisely this reason, it is an act of the greatest charity toward all the faithful, comparable to preventing a dangerous disease from infecting innumerable people. By isolating the bearer of infection, we protect the bodily health of others; by the anathema, we protect their spiritual health[.] …

And more: a rupture of communion with the heretic in no way implies that our obligation of charity toward him ceases. No, the Church prays also for heretics [as we see in the traditional orations of Good Friday]; the true Catholic who knows a heretic personally prays ardently for him and would never cease to impart all kinds of help to him. But he should not have any communion with him. Thus St. John, the great apostle of charity, said: “If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar” (I Jn. 4:20). But he also said: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house[.]” (2 Jn. 1:10).[4]

Therefore we exhort every cleric, theologian, and diocesan official of any kind: examine yourself, and consider speaking to your bishop about this solution. The words that have been spoken by Bishop Paprocki are obviously good, but we ask for less talking and more action.

Read the Whole Article

The post Bishops Against Bishops: the Proven Solution appeared first on LewRockwell.

There’s a stark disconnect between the Trump Administration’s description of the economy and the economy that we all live in. There are some things that can’t be faked. We pay our bills. We see our bank accounts, and credit card accounts. We don’t need the president, or the media, to tell us that “inflation is dead.” Inflation is not dead! Yesterday, it was reported that monthly layoffs from October were the highest total in 22 years! President Trump was elected to deliver a smaller government with less spending and debt, and an end to the wars. He has done the opposite on all fronts, and the battered economy is reflecting his decisions.

The post Highest Monthly Layoffs In 22 Years — America’s New Golden Age? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dick Cheney is dead. But what does it mean? The lying corporate dinosaur media will tell you that America has just lost a dear, selfless, civic-minded patriot. But as we shall see, Dick Cheney has left behind him a very dark legacy of cover ups, coups, false flags, torture and death.

SHOW NOTES AND COMMENTS: https://corbettreport.com/the-dark-le…

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SHOW NOTES WITH LINKS TO ALL OF THE ARTICLES, VIDEOS AND WEBSITES MENTIONED? HOW ABOUT COMMENTS? THEY’RE AT THE CORBETT REPORT WEBSITE! JUST FOLLOW THE “SHOW NOTES AND COMMENTS” LINK ABOVE TO GO THERE DIRECTLY.

DEEP State and Continuity of Government (COG)

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

Conspiracy Theory

The post The Dark Legacy of Dick Cheney appeared first on LewRockwell.

John Leo Keenan wrote:

He makes very clear points.  And the same can be said of Thomas Mathew Crooks.  He learned too soon before the event that there would be the event.  How could he get the rifle up there is not known!  One or two saw him climbing up with the rifle, but we see him without a rifle before the event.  How could he get the rifle from the car without being seen?  Must have placed it up there when there was no one there?  It raises questions of timing and motive.  How does a “municipal agent” of all agents climb up with a gun, sees him with a rifle, and then quickly descends to run away (to tell others).  Why is a “municipal” one the one in that situation?  I focused on what his helmet/head video showed.  I froze the image of the roof top.  There is no person there and it’s another roof, with a low wall on the opposite side (believe it or not).  I wrote about this in an LRC article.

One ignores some important details if there are others that point to something being impossible.  We can discard any possibility that Thomas Matthew Crooks was the shooter by pointing out that the Butler videos released had to be pre-arranged for this crime because we see him on top of a building that only at first sight is the AGR building.  It’s certainly not the AGR building, as can be readily ascertained from the details of the image(s).  They are like the false video of James Copenhaver – the AGR building cannot be right behind the stands, where we know there’s grass.  Everybody knows the AGR building is more than 100 meters behind.  Even this isn’t being noticed or discussed.   

With such facts, one concludes that terrorism is above all a spiritual attack, and only after that a physical attack.  The TV channels play Copenhaver’s film again whenever it’s suitable.  There should not just be one or two that sound the alert about this video and the others.  So many should recognize its obviously fake image that eventually no one can ignore it.  The investigation could begin with any of the false videos because the one who arranged them is the real culprit.  (Crooks appears to have been manipulated by someone.)   

The biggest difference with Tyler’s case would be that Thomas fired at the president.  

The post The Charile Kirk Assassination FBI Official Narrative Demolished in 10 Minutes appeared first on LewRockwell.

Why are the French different from Americans? One reason, for good or ill, is that in their senior year in high school (called términale) French kids must take a course in philosophy. My daughter has just started reading the Pensées (Thoughts) of Pascal. My response to Pascal and his Pensées is given below in an essay I wrote for myself when I read it more than 35 years ago. But before that consider why I read this old book through the following dialogue from another, very different, French writer Marcel Proust; In the first volume of Remembrance of Things Past (in French À la recherche du temps perdue, In Search of Lost Time) , (translated by Moncrieff, Random House, v.1, p. 20).

“I say!” exclaimed Swann to my grandfather, “what I was going to tell you has more to do than you might think with what you were asking me just now, for in some respects there has been very little change. I came across a passage in Saint-Simon this morning which would have amused you. It is in the volume which covers his mission to Spain; not one of the best, little more in fact than a journal, but at least it is a journal wonderfully well written, which fairly distinguishes it from the devastating (sic) journalism that we feel bound to read these days, morning, noon and night.”

“I do not agree with you: there are some days when I find reading the papers very pleasant indeed!” my aunt Flora broke in, to show Swann that she had read the note about his Corot in the ‘Figaro.’

“Yes,” aunt Celine went one better. “When they write things about people whom we are interested.”

“I don’t deny it,” answered Swann in some bewilderment. “The fault I find with our journalism is that it forces us to take an interest in some fresh triviality or other every day, whereas only three or four books in a lifetime give us anything that is of real importance. Suppose that, every morning when we tore the wrapper off our paper with fevered hands, a transmutation were to take place, and we were to find inside it – oh! I don’t know; shall we say Pascal’s ‘Pensees?’”

Even more so today than in Proust’s time, it is important to find the signal in the noise. Get off your Twitter (I should write X) feed and read a great, old book.

On the Pensées of Pascal

“It might seem that about Blaise Pascal, and about the two works on which his fame is founded everything that there is to say had been said. . . . But Pascal is one who must be studied afresh by men in every generation. It is not he who changes, but we who change.”

T. S. Eliot

Upon reading these lines of Eliot, as is my habit, I studied afresh the Pensées of Pascal. The man who was to become one of the great Christian apologists of his age, or any age, I knew only as the man for whom a unit of pressure is named. Here I shall inform you of what little I have learned of his life and my feeling of the Pensées.

Blaise Pascal was born June 19, 1623 in Clermont-Ferrand, France. His mother having died as an infant, his father raised the boy and his sisters, personally undertaking the task of their education. Pascal was a precocious student. At sixteen he published a paper on solid geometry that Descartes could not believe was written by one so young. Pascal collaborated with his father on experiments that proved a vacuum was possible, which once again brought him into contention with Descartes. With these and other inventions and discoveries the great mathematician and physicist was known as the most brilliant man of his time. A celebrity himself, he knew all the best and brightest in Paris.

At the height of his renown on November 23, 1654 Pascal had a religious revelation. He recorded the event in a note that was sewn into the overcoat that he was wearing when he died. While he was always a Christian he came to feel that his religious attitude had not been fervent enough. He left the social life of Paris to join his sister in the Jansenist convent at Port-Royal. On his choice of faith over fame Pascal wrote:

“Vanity is so firmly anchored in man¹s heart that a soldier, a rough, a cook or a porter will boast and expect admirers, and even philosophers want them; those who write against them want to enjoy the prestige of having read them, and perhaps I who wrote this want the same thing, perhaps my readers.” . .

The Jansenists were a Catholic sect, who at that time were at odds with the Jesuits. Pascal wrote the Provincial Letters (1656-57) in defense of the Jansenist cause. This series of anonymous pamphlets is a masterpiece of French prose. Pascal lived his life in religious and scientific reflection until his death in 1662.

Pascal¹s Pensées (thoughts) were published posthumously in 1669. They are a compilation of notes intended for a Christian apology. Pascal intended to make the argument for Christian truths through reason. In spite of the fact that a Christian truth is that faith can not be deduced by reason. “Either God is or he is not.”

“But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.”

Thus, Pascal argues, even if your reason prevents your faith, shouldn¹t

prudential reason move you to search for faith.

Pascal’s fundamental view of the world is of fallen man. That while

“man has god-like qualities he also displays the savageness of a beast. The two truths of the Christian religion are “that there is a God, of whom men are capable, and that there is a corruption in nature which makes them unworthy. It is of equal importance to men to know each of these points: and it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness as to know his own wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can cure him. Knowing only one of these points leads either to the arrogance of the philosophers, who have known God but not their own wretchedness, or to the despair of the atheists, who know their own wretchedness without knowing their Redeemer.”

When man acts with the arrogance of a god to remake man or the world the results are disastrous. The French and Russian revolutions are testimonies to this truth. I can testify to the wretchedness of life in this world when God is not known with the example of my mother. Her life has no joy for as we all have failures, sickness and eventually death in our lives, she cannot see the light of the Redeemer which gives hope in the face of despair. Unfortunately I see no way to help her so I can only pray for her and grieve for her.

So what is it of Pascal that I have learned afresh, that I will keep with me for the rest of my days. In the words of Pascal:

“Thus I stretch out my arms to my saviour, who, after being foretold for four thousand years, came on earth to die and suffer for me at the time and the circumstances foretold. By his grace I peaceably await death, in the hope of being eternally united, and meanwhile I live joyfully, whether in the blessings which he is pleased to bestow on me or in the afflictions which he sends me for my own good and taught me how to endure by his example.”

Amen.

The post Pascal appeared first on LewRockwell.

The federal government shutdown in recent weeks has highlighted the full cost of many government programs, including the food stamp program. Many people—especially the kind who don’t spend their time tracking federal spending—have been shocked by the fact that one in eight Americans—12 percent of the population—receives food stamps. That’s about 42 million people. Moreover, most food stamp recipients receive other forms of government “welfare” as well.

For many, these statistics flying around social media and among podcasters have served to highlight the sheer size of the American population that receives government money as a substantial portion of their income.

This raises an important question: if a sizable portion of a person’s income comes from tax dollars, should that person be eligible to vote himself access to even more tax dollars?

Some think not. This woman, for instance, received 64K likes when she stated: “I don’t think these people should vote. Honestly, how can you vote freely, when you’re being bought?”

She’s right.

This is a controversial take, to say the least. Yet, many people who act aghast at the idea would also surely regard it as a bad thing if a politician voted “yes” to awarding a government contract to his own company. This is because many people understand that being in a position to vote to send yourself more taxpayer money involves a conflict of interest. Historically, a member of a city council or legislature has often been expected to refrain from voting when he can personally benefit financially from his own vote. It is understood that anyone voting in this situation is not voting “freely” but is biased in favor of enriching himself at the expense of others.

Yet, few people think twice when a voter casts his ballot for a politician who has promised to give that voter more taxpayer money. Sometimes, at the state level, voters will cast their ballot to directly enrich themselves through ballot initiatives and referenda. This, we are told is all perfectly fine because voting is allegedly some kind of sacred right.

How Many People Live off Taxpayer Funds? 

How many voters—or at least potential voters—are using the taxpayers as their personal piggy banks?

Although recent controversies over food stamps have highlighted that particular program, food stamps are just the tip of the iceberg. The number of Americans who receive monthly taxpayer-funded income goes far beyond the 41 million on food stamps. For example, 72 million Americans receive Social Security, and 65 million of those also receive tax-funded health services through Medicare. Yes, recipients of Social Security like to claim that they “paid in” to the system and now receive their payments out of some kind of imagined trust fund. The reality, of course, is that Social Security and Medicare are 100% funded by current workers. That is, the programs are nothing more than a wealth transfer from workers to retirees. In every way except the rhetoric, Social Security and Medicare are just welfare programs, and every politician knows that his elderly voters expect him to keep ripping off current taxpayers to keep the elderly voters happy.

There are also 70 million Americans on Medicaid. In many cases, Medicaid services amount to the equivalent of thousands of dollars per month for recipients.

We can’t just add these numbers up, however, as there is a lot of overlap in the programs. For example, 78 percent of food stamp recipients are also eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, since we’re talking about all of this in the context of voting, we should remove children—who cannot vote—from the counts.1

Medicare recipients are nearly all on Social Security, so the “Social Security and/or Medicare” group totals about 72 million adults. To this we can add the adult Medicaid recipients who total about 60 percent of total recipients. That’s about 42 million adults. But we must also remove the 12 million Medicaid recipients who are also on Medicare and so are already counted in the Medicare category. That means we can add 30 million adult Medicaid recipients to the 72 million on Social Security. Then, we can add the adult food-stamp recipients who are not already counted under the Medicaid category. That’s another 5.4 million adults. That brings us to a total of about 107 million adult US residents on some form or welfare—and we’re not even counting TANF, rental assistance (Section 8), or other smaller programs here.

Don’t Forget Taxpayer Funded Government Employees and Contractors

Of course, people receiving so-called “social benefits” are not the only people who life off the largesse of the taxpayers. There are at least 10 million others whose paychecks come from the taxpayers. For example, there are 2.2 million federal civilian workers, 1.3 million military “service” members, 400,000 postal workers, 1.8 million workers funded by federal grants, and more than 5 million federal contractors. That latter category, of course, includes those well-paid engineers and white collar workers who make weapons for the Pentagon or “consult” for the departments of Agriculture, State, and other agencies.2

Source: Brookings Institution, (in millions of employees).

Sure, many contractors and federal employees will tell you that they aren’t in the same category as welfare recipients because they “work.” But from the point of view of tax transfers and fiscal policy, there is no difference at all. The issue here isn’t morality or virtue or whether or not someone “deserves” his tax-funded check. We’re simply pointing out the millions of Americans whose income is based on a forcible transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the recipients’ pocket.

In this, federal contractors and other federal workers are often similar to all recipients of taxpayer money: they all have reasons as to why they have some sort of right to the taxpayer’s dime. Trying to convince these people otherwise is often a lost cause for the reasons that Upton Sinclair suggested long ago: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

But whatever justification is given by the 117 million or so Americans living off the taxpayer’s “generosity,” the fact remains that at least a third of the population in the United States—nearly 45 percent of the adult population—receives a lot of money from the taxpayers. What’s worse, I’m not even including here all the local-government workers funded by federal dollars, students and faculty at federally funded colleges, or the users of smaller federal programs like LIHEAP. And yet we still find nearly half the US population is receiving taxpayer-funded salaries or “benefits.”

When the Bureaucrats/Welfare Recipients/Government Contractors Outnumber the Taxpayers

So, are we to seriously believe that these people would ever vote to substantially cut government spending? Every politician knows the answer to this. He knows that those millions of government contractors and military employees are simply not going to support a candidate who prioritizes any substantial cuts to military spending. Politicians know that opposing Social Security is political suicide. Nowadays, even opposing Medicaid has become a politically dangerous endeavor because so many millions of voters depend on the program’s taxpayer-funded services.

Even if only half of these 116 million taxpayer-funded adults actually vote, that’s a pretty big chunk of the 150 million who voted in the 2024 election. The entire US adult population, after all, is only about 258 million.

This all illustrates why the United States government will never rein in spending or seriously engage the problem of mounting debt and deficits short of an acute sovereign debt crisis or a (probably violent) coup-like event. The hundred-million or so Americans who rely on federal spending for their incomes won’t allow any real reform to ever occur. Runaway debt and spending is now baked into the system. These is no orderly or legal way out of this.

The political dynamic at work was explained by Ludwig von Mises long ago. In his short book Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises examined this problem in the context of government employees. In a section titled “The Bureaucrat as a Voter” Mises explains:

The bureaucrat is not only a government employee. He is, under a democratic constitution, at the same time a voter and as such a part of the sovereign, his employer. He is in a peculiar position: he is both employer and employee. And his pecuniary interest as employee towers above his interest as employer, as he gets much more from the public funds than he contributes to them.

This double relationship becomes more important as the people on the government’s pay roll increase. The bureaucrat as voter is more eager to get a raise than to keep the budget balanced. His main concern is to swell the pay roll.

Mises went on to examine the rise of powerful interest groups in France and Germany in the years before “the fall of their democratic constitutions.” He explained:

There were not only the hosts of public employees, and those employed in the nationalized branches of business (e.g., railroad, post, telegraph, and telephone), there were the receivers of the unemployment dole and of social security benefits, as well as the farmers and some other groups which the government directly or indirectly subsidized. Their main concern was to get more out of the public funds. They did not care for “ideal” issues like liberty, justice, the supremacy of the law, and good government. They asked for more money, that was all. No candidate for parliament, provincial diets, or town councils could risk opposing the appetite of the public employees for a raise. The various political parties were eager to outdo one another in munificence.

Mises concluded:

Representative democracy cannot subsist if a great part of the voters are on the government pay roll. If the members of parliament no longer consider themselves mandatories of the taxpayers but deputies of those receiving salaries, wages, subsidies, doles, and other benefits from the treasury, democracy is done for.

The logic of this position is simple. If the voting taxpayers (specifically, those who actually pay the bills) are outnumbered or outcompeted by the tax receivers, then, inevitably, the economic system will tend more and more toward economic profligacy, leading eventually to bankruptcy.

America is already a long way down this road.

—

1 Various sources show that about 40 percent of Medicaid and food stamp recipients are children. Medicare and Social Security, of course, are directed at elderly voters.

2 One could also argue that we should also include the 2.1 million military retirees to this category along with the 2.6 million retired federal workers who receive federal pensions. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll leave those out since many are already included in the Social Security category.

The post Why Food Stamp Recipients (and Government Contractors) Should Not Be Allowed To Vote appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dick Cheney died this week. He leaves behind a wretched legacy.

Cheney reached the pinnacle of his influence as George W. Bush’s vice president, a position from which he orchestrated the Iraq War and helped bring about one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation ever to have been leveled against the American people.

Democrats reflexively abhorred Cheney as veep, but as GOP voters became more averse to foreign intervention, he became a symbol of everything that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy. As Jack Kenny said in 2011, “[Cheney’s] impact on and, to a large extent, direction of foreign policy during the Bush presidency suggests that if he was and is a conservative, his is the kind of conservatism George Will described as believing that ‘government can’t run Amtrak, but it can run the Middle East.’”

Iraq Intervention: Why?

As vice president, Cheney was the loudest voice to advocate the invasion of Iraq. He broadcast the false narrative that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction with great zeal. But that wasn’t his first foray into Iraq, or the first time he led an invasion under a Bush. Cheney oversaw Operation Desert Storm in 1991 as secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. And in between Bush presidencies, when he wasn’t busy planning invasions into Iraq, Cheney worked as the CEO of Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil companies.

It just so happens that Iraq is considered one of the top five oil-rich countries. And if it were up to Cheney, American soldiers would’ve been sent into other oil-rich Middle Eastern nations. According to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cheney had grand plans to deploy American soldiers all over the Middle East. Kenny writes:

In his new book, A Journey: My Political Life, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair recalls that Cheney wanted the United States to go to war not only with Afghanistan and Iraq, but with a number of other countries in the Middle East, as he believed the world must be “made anew.” “He would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran, dealing with all their surrogates in the course of it — Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.,” Blair wrote. “In other words, [Cheney] thought the world had to be made anew, and that after 11 September, it had to be done by force and with urgency. So he was for hard, hard power. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.”

Journalist and author Robert Parry also suspected these wider ambitions, which had been kept out of earshot of the American public. He wrote:

There have been indications of this larger neoconservative strategy to attack America’s — and Israel’s — “enemies” starting with Iraq and then moving on to Syria and Iran, but rarely has this more expansive plan for regional war been shared explicitly with the American public.

“Agency of the President”

Cheney once said, “Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole? It’s a nice way to operate, actually.” This is related to the common perception that he was more powerful than the president. “At the minimum, Cheney was a co-equal to Bush and is widely understood to be perhaps the most effective vice president in history,” renowned left-wing journalist Seymour Hersh recently wrote. Kenny pointed out that one of the nicknames Cheney acquired as veep was “’Management,’ as in ‘Better check with management first.’” He wrote:

Former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) described the free hand Cheney appeared to have in his dealings with Congress. “Dick could make a deal,” Gramm told [Barton Gellman], author of Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. “He didn’t have to check with the president, not as far as I could tell. I’m sure at the end of the day, he would fill the president in on what happened. But Dick had the agency of the president.”

CFR Ties

While Cheney is rightly recognized, even by mainstream standards, as a negative influence on American policies, one important element that’s been widely overlooked in his ties to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a subversive foreign-policy think tank that we like to refer to as the “Deep State nervous system.” Cheney was a CFR life member. He served on its board of directors from 1987 to 1989 and again from 1993 to 1995, and was also its director at one point. Interestingly, he mentioned none of this in his 500-plus-page memoir, In My Time. In 2011, the former Wyoming lawmaker admitted during a visit to CFR headquarters that he had intentionally kept his ties to the organization a secret:

It’s good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations. I’ve been a member for a long time, and was actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for reelection back home in Wyoming, but it stood me in good stead.

After his death, the CFR posted a warm tribute to him:

A steadfast steward of the Council, Cheney brought to our community the same seriousness of purpose, strategic insight, and commitment to public service that defined his distinguished career in government and the private sector. Cheney’s decades of leadership — as vice president of the United States, secretary of defense, member of Congress, and senior White House official — reflected a lifetime devoted to strengthening the United States’ national security and its role in the world. The Council is grateful to have counted Cheney as a member, director, and friend. We extend our deepest condolences to his family and loved ones.

Many would disagree with the CFR’s characterization. It’s difficult to see how sacrificing thousands of American lives and racking up debt to pay for overseas wars and fueling legislation that allows the government to spy on Americans have made the country stronger. Cheney was a key architect of the post-9/11 response. And as such, he helped finagle congressional approval for the PATRIOT Act, a wholly un-American piece of legislation that has greatly expanded the government’s ability to surveil Americans. He coordinated amendments with administration officials and reconciled the House and Senate versions. His chief of staff,  Scooter Libby, was also involved in high-level meetings about the act.

Helping Trump?

But there might be one contribution by Cheney that is — for now — still considered a plus. As the folks at The Spectator observed, “Cheney was more responsible for [Donald] Trump’s rise than almost anyone else in the Republican establishment.” How so? Explained The Spectator:

Recall that it was during the 2016 South Carolina primary that Trump first showed his real independence from the folderol surrounding the Iraq War. Trump created shock and awe by denouncing it. “The war in Iraq,” he said, “was a big, fat mistake.” Until then, Republicans had marched in lockstep beneath the George W. Bush banner.

But as much as Cheney did for Trump, the president never returned the favor. In fact, he was instrumental in ousting Cheney’s daughter Liz out of Congress. Before she disappeared into the void of irrelevancy, Liz Cheney had essentially become a Democrat. She eventually showed her true colors and endorsed the Uniparty’s empty vessel, Kamala Harris.

The silver lining is that Dick Cheney’s foreign policy was so disastrous that it turned a massive portion of the American people against neoconservatism. The Cheney effect is still playing out today. Donald Trump is taking a lot of fire from his base for for failing to fully deliver on his campaign promises to not get involved in any foreign wars.

Thank you, Dick Cheney, for showing the American people the repulsiveness of meddling in foreign affairs.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post History Will Not Be Kind to Dick Cheney appeared first on LewRockwell.

The only hope to save ourselves from Trump’s authoritarianism is mass movements. We must build alternative centers of power — including political parties, media, labor unions and universities — to give a voice and agency to those who have been disempowered by our two ruling parties, especially the working class and working poor. We must carry out strikes to cripple and thwart the abuses carried out by the emerging police state. We must champion a radical socialism, which includes slashing the $1 trillion spent on the war industry and ending our suicidal addiction to fossil fuels, and lift up the lives of Americans cast aside in the wreckage of industrialization, declining wages, a decaying infrastructure and crippling austerity programs.

The Democratic Party and its liberal allies decry the consolidation of absolute power by the Trump White House, the repeated constitutional violations, the flagrant corruption and the deformation of federal agencies— including the Justice Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — into attack dogs to persecute Trump’s opponents and dissidents. It warns that time is running out. But at the same time, it steadfastly refuses to call for mass mobilizations that can disrupt the machinery of commerce and state. It treats the handful of Democratic Party politicians who address social inequality and abuses by the billionaire class — including Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani — as lepers. It blithely ignores the concerns and demands of ordinary Democratic Party voters reducing them to disposable props at rallies, town halls and conventions.

The Democratic Party and the liberal class are terrified of mass movements, fearing, correctly, that they too will be swept aside. They delude themselves that they can save us from despotism as they cling to a dead political formula — mounting vapid, corporate indentured candidates such as Kamala Harris or the Democratic Party candidate and formal naval officer running for Governor in New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill. They cling to the vain hope that being against Trump fills the void left by their lack of a vision and abject subservience to the billionaire class.

A Washington Post-ABC News/Ipsos poll, summarized by the Washington Post under the headline, “Voters broadly disapprove of Trump but remain divided on midterms, poll finds” — found that 68 percent of those polled believe the Democrats are out of touch with the aspirations of voters, with 63 percent saying that about Trump.

A “year out from the 2026 midterm elections, there is little evidence that negative impressions of Trump’s performance have accrued to the benefit of the Democratic Party, with voters split almost evenly in their support for Democrats and Republicans,” the Washington Post summary reads.

The liberal class in a capitalist democracy is designed to function as a safety valve. It makes possible incremental reform. But, at the same time, it does not challenge or question the foundations of power. The quid-pro-quo sees the liberal class serve as an attack dog to discredit radical social movements. The liberal class, for this reason, is a useful tool. It gives the system legitimacy. It keeps alive the belief that reform is possible.

The oligarchs and corporations, terrified by the mobilization of the left in the 1960s and 1970s — what political scientist Samuel P. Huntington called America’s “excess of democracy” — set out to build counter-institutions to delegitimize and marginalize critics of capitalism and imperialism. They bought the allegiances of the two ruling political parties. They imposed obedience to neoliberalism within academia, government agencies and the press. They neutered the liberal class and crushed popular movements. They unleashed the FBI on anti-war protestors, the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, the Young Lords and other groups that empowered the disempowered. They broke labor unions, leaving 90 percent of the American workforce without union protections. Critics of capitalism and imperialism, such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader, were blacklisted. The campaign, laid out by Lewis F. Powell Jr. in his 1971 memorandum titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” set into motion the creeping corporate coup d’etat, which five decades later, is complete.

The differences between the two ruling parties on substantive issues — such as war, tax cuts, trade deals and austerity — became indistinguishable. Politics was reduced to burlesque, popularity contests between manufactured personalities and acrimonious battles over culture wars. Workers lost protections. Wages stagnated. Debt peonage soared. Constitutional rights were revoked by judicial fiat. The Pentagon consumed half of all discretionary spending.

The liberal class, rather than stand up against the onslaught, retreated into the boutique activism of political correctness. It ignored the vicious class war that would see, under the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, around one million workers lose their jobs in mass layoffs linked to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), on top of the estimated 32 million jobs lost due to deindustrialization during the 1970s and 1980s. It ignored blanket government surveillance set up in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. It ignored the kidnapping and torture — “extraordinary rendition” — and imprisoning of terrorism suspects into black sites, along with assassinations, even of U.S. citizens. It ignored the austerity programs that saw social services slashed. It ignored the social inequality that has reached its most extreme levels of disparity in over 200 years, surpassing the rapacious greed of the robber barons.

Clinton’s welfare reform bill, which was signed on Aug. 22, 1996, threw six million people, many of them single mothers, off the welfare rolls within four years. It dumped them onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies and Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than $15,000 a year. But they were the lucky ones. In some states, half of those dropped from welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton also slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $14 billion in Medicaid funding. The overcrowded prison system handled the influx of the poor, as well as the abandoned mentally ill.

The media, owned by corporations and oligarchs, assured the public it was prudent to entrust life savings to a financial system run by speculators and thieves. In the meltdown of 2008, life savings were gutted. And then these media organizations, catering to corporate advertisers and sponsors, rendered invisible those whose misery, poverty, and grievances should be the principal focus of journalism.

Barack Obama, who raised more than $745 million — much of it corporate money — to run for president, facilitated the looting of the U.S. Treasury by corporations and big banks following the 2008 crash. He turned his back on millions of Americans who lost their homes because of bank repossessions or foreclosures. He expanded the wars begun by his predecessor George W. Bush. He killed the public option — universal health care — and forced the public to buy his defective for-profit ObamaCare — the Affordable Care Act — a bonanza for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

If the Democratic Party was fighting to defend universal health care during the government shutdown, rather than the half measure of preventing premiums from rising for ObamaCare, millions would take to the streets.

The Democratic Party throws scraps to the serfs. It congratulates itself for allowing unemployed people the right to keep their unemployed children on for-profit health care policies. It passes a jobs bill that gives tax credits to corporations as a response to an unemployment rate that — if one includes all those who are stuck in part-time or lower skilled jobs but are capable and want to do more — is arguably, closer to 20 percent. It forces taxpayers, one in eight of whom depend on food stamps to eat, to fork over trillions to pay for the crimes of Wall Street and endless war, including the genocide in Gaza.

The defenestration of the liberal class reduced it to courtiers mouthing empty platitudes. The safety valve shut down. The assault on the working class and working poor accelerated. So too did very legitimate rage.

This rage gave us Trump.

The historian Fritz Stern, a refugee from Nazi Germany, wrote that fascism is the bastard child of a bankrupt liberalism. He saw in our spiritual and political alienation — given expression through cultural hatreds, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, a demonization of immigrants, misogyny and despair — the seeds of an American fascism.

“They attacked liberalism,” Stern wrote of the supporters of German fascists in his book “The Politics of Cultural Despair,” “because it seemed to them the principal premise of modern society; everything they dreaded seemed to spring from it; the bourgeois life, Manchesterism [laissez-faire capitalism], materialism, parliament and the parties, the lack of political leadership. Even more, they sensed in liberalism the source of all their inner sufferings. Theirs was a resentment of loneliness; their one desire was for a new faith, a new community of believers, a world with fixed standards and no doubts, a new national religion that would bind all Germans together. All this, liberalism denied. Hence, they hated liberalism, blamed it for making outcasts of them, for uprooting them from their imaginary past, and from their faith.”

Richard Rorty in his last book in 1999, “Achieving Our Country,” also knew where we were headed. He writes:

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words nigger and kike will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

The democratic tools for change — running for office, campaigning, voting, lobbying and petitions — no longer work. Corporate forces and oligarchs have seized control of our political, educational, media and economic systems. They cannot be removed from within.

The Democratic Party is a hollow appendage.

Our captured institutions, subservient to the rich and the powerful, are capitulating to Trump’s authoritarianism. All we have left is sustained non-violent, disruptive civil disobedience. Mass movements. Radical politics. Rebellion. A socialist vision that counters the poison of unfettered capitalism. This alone can thwart Trump’s police state and rid us of the feckless liberal class that sustains it.

This article was originally published on ScheerPost.

The post Trump’s Greatest Ally Is the Democratic Party appeared first on LewRockwell.

Israel is still blocking humanitarian groups from delivering the aid necessary to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

In an article titled “Not enough tents, food reaching Gaza as winter comes, aid agencies say,” Reuters reports that “Far too little aid is reaching Gaza nearly four weeks after a ceasefire” due to Israeli restrictions preventing aid trucks from getting to their destinations, and that according to an OSHA report last week “a tenth of children screened in Gaza were still acutely malnourished.”

A report from the UK’s Channel 4 News shows warehouses full of food that aid groups say isn’t being allowed into Gaza nearly as rapidly as needed.

In an article titled “‘Under the Guise of Bureaucracy’ — Israel Blocks Humanitarian Groups From Delivering Essential Aid Despite Calm in Gaza,” Israeli outlet Haaretz reports that “Israel has implemented a new procedure requiring all humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza and the West Bank to reapply for official approval, with many denied, despite the relative calm in Gaza following the cease-fire.”

They’re using bureaucratic red tape and arbitrary restrictions to put as much inertia on the effort to rush aid into Gaza as possible. As Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah put it, Israel has “successfully rebranded its genocide as a ‘ceasefire.’”

❖

Still can’t wrap my head around the fact that internationally renowned activist Greta Thunberg said she was tortured and sexually humiliated by Israeli soldiers when she was abducted for trying to bring aid to starving civilians, and the world just shrugged and moved on.

❖

It’s so silly when US empire apologists cite “the Monroe Doctrine” to defend US warmongering in Latin America, as though “the entire western hemisphere is our property” is a perfectly legitimate policy to have.

The Monroe Doctrine was just American imperialists telling Europe, “You see all these brown people over here south of our border? These are our brown people. You can do whatever you want to those brown people over there in Africa and Asia, but these brown people over here belong to us. Only we get to dominate and exploit them.”

That’s all it has ever been, and people cite it to justify warmongering toward Venezuela or wherever as though saying “yeah well that’s the Monroe Doctrine” is a complete argument in and of itself. It’s bat shit insane nonsense and it should be rejected in its entirety.

US regime change interventionism is reliably disastrous wherever it happens. It always causes immense suffering and instability, it’s always justified by lies, and it never accomplishes what its proponents claim it will accomplish. No amount of bleating the words “Monroe Doctrine” will ever change that.

❖

The US empire backs genocidal Gulf state monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia because if those states were democratically governed their people would prioritize their own interests over the agendas of the west. They wouldn’t permit US military bases on their territory, and they never would have tolerated Israel and its abuses in the region. Fossil fuel policy would be set without regard for western interests. The entire region could long ago have united into a superpower bloc which rivaled or outmuscled the western power structure using its critical resources and trade routes.

That’s why you see the US and its allies preaching about the values of Freedom and Democracy to the public while privately telling these tyrannical monarchies they can do whatever they want and receive the backing of the imperial machine. Not until their pet tyrant fails to sufficiently kowtow to the interests of the empire does the west suddenly get interested in advancing Freedom and Democracy in their nation.

This is one of the major dynamics at play in Sudan. The United Arab Emirates has been backing the genocidal atrocities of the RSF and the US empire is placing no pressure on them to stop, because that’s part of the deal. As long as the UAE plays along with the agendas of the empire, the empire will tolerate or actively facilitate its abuses.

❖

I saw a clip of Joe Rogan telling Elon Musk that AI music is his “favorite music now,” gushing about how soulful and moving it is.

Imagine admitting this about yourself in public. AI art is shallow, vapid sensory stimulation made for shallow, vapid people who don’t have enough depth and dimensionality in their consciousness to be moved by profound arisings from the human spirit. They’re just stimulus-response amoebas.

If you tell me you love AI art I won’t try to convince you, I’ll just side-eye you, because while you may not realize it, you are telling me something very revealing about yourself.

People who think AI art is awesome are the AI art of people.

❖

We’ve all known someone like Israel. Someone who lies and manipulates all the time. Someone who’s always stirring up conflict and acting like the victim. Someone who’s obtained everything they have by stepping on top of others.

Healthy people avoid such individuals like the plague. We have labels that we use to warn others to stay clear of them. Drama queen. Narcissist. Compulsive liar. Sociopath. Manipulator.

Under ordinary circumstances such people gradually find themselves socially alienated by all but the most gullible and malleable codependents, because normal people can’t stand being around them.

Israel is like if everyone was being forced to be that person’s friend at gunpoint. Say nice things to the sociopath and pretend to believe their lies or you’re getting your head blown off.

Nations who oppose Israel’s crimes find themselves in the crosshairs of the imperial war machine. Organizations who oppose Israel’s abuses find themselves smeared, targeted, and proscribed as terrorist groups. Individuals who oppose Israel’s atrocities get fired, slandered, marginalized, censored, and silenced.

The healthy impulse we all have in ourselves to pull away from such loathsome entities is being overridden by brute force. All normal people want to turn against Israel and do whatever is necessary to end its tyranny and abuse, but the imperial institutions are doing everything in their power to coerce them to comply.

That’s the only reason Israel has any remaining support at all. Hopefully someday they won’t even have that.

________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Israel Is Still Starving Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

While the government shutdown continues and health-care reform remains gridlocked, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) burdens taxpayers with out-of-control costs. For more than a decade, Obamacare has been riddled with systemic fraud that has been denied by Democratic Party bureaucrats, ignored by much of the media, and paid for by weary taxpayers.

Built on lies including “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” Catholics continue to bitterly recall the duplicitous role that Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Healthcare Association, played in passing Obamacare—despite the pushback by the Catholic bishops because of its inclusion of abortion funding and the contraception mandate. Sr. Keehan’s mendacious shepherding of the health-care program was rewarded with a silver signing pen from President Obama.

Intensifying the pressure today on an already overburdened health-care system, the influx of several million undocumented immigrants has pushed government-funded health care to a breaking point. According to an October 2024 CBO report to Rep. Jodey Arrington, federal and state governments spent $27 billion on Emergency Medicaid for noncitizens ineligible for full Medicaid coverage between 2017 and 2023. In 2023, the estimated cost of health care for undocumented immigrants in the United States was approximately $3.8 billion, specifically for Emergency Medicaid services.

Hospitals are bound by law to provide emergency services to undocumented patients under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), enacted in 1986. This is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care to all individuals, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Under EMTALA, any hospital that receives Medicare funding must conduct a medical screening exam for anyone who arrives at the emergency department and must provide stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions, including active labor. This mandate applies to undocumented immigrants as well as uninsured citizens and legal residents—and most of us strongly support the provision of this care to all on an emergency basis.

Unfortunately, such care is costly. According to the Trump administration, the estimated cost of emergency health care in 2024—including labor and delivery and postnatal care of the mothers and newborn babies—of undocumented immigrants in the United States rose 142 percent from the year before to an astonishing 9.1 billion dollars of taxpayer funds to pay for the emergency health care of those in the country illegally. Between 2020 to 2024, Medicaid taxpayer health-care dollars provided to illegal immigrants tripled.

Though critics argue that the Trump administration’s numbers are inflated, few challenge the fact that the nation’s hospitals are facing a fiscal crisis. In January 2024, Dr. Donna Lynne, CEO of Denver Health, publicly voiced concern over the financial strain caused by uncompensated care for undocumented individuals. Speaking at a finance and governance committee meeting, she stated, “Where do you think the migrants are getting care? They are getting care at Denver Health…It’s going to break Denver Health in a way that we didn’t even anticipate.” Her remarks highlighted the hospital system’s mounting fiscal challenges, noting that Denver Health treated over 8,000 undocumented immigrants in 2023, accounting for approximately 20,000 visits. Uncompensated care costs surged from $60 million in 2020 to $136 million in 2023.

These expenses will continue to grow even though, according to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), eligibility for Medicaid was intended to be limited to “qualified aliens.” That includes lawful permanent residents (also known as green-card holders), asylum seekers, refugees, and people who are paroled into the United States for one year or more. By designating millions of undocumented illegal immigrants as “paroled into the United States,” the Biden administration effectively redefined the legal status of undocumented immigrants, making them eligible for enrollment in the government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded Affordable Care Act. Illegal immigrants with parole status can choose to enroll in ACA Marketplace plans and can receive premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions if they meet income requirements—all at the taxpayers’ expense.

This latest “illegal” immigrant health-care scam to gain access to taxpayer-funded ACA Marketplace plans follows one that was exposed by Bloomberg in June 2025, which revealed yet another under-reported Obamacare frontier in health-care fraud. This fraud encouraged deceptive ACA enrollments driven by AI-generated deepfakes of celebrities like Taylor Swift, Joe Rogan, and Andrew Tate. The way the scam worked was to use social media to draw on celebrity deepfakes to promote cash giveaways and ACA-related offers on social media simply for “signing up” for Obamacare. Viewers of the ads were invited to call telemarketing centers where commissions were paid on a per-lead model. The centers then redirected callers to insurance brokers who enrolled them in ACA plans, replete with premium tax credits and taxpayer-subsidized health care well beyond emergency room care—often without their consent or understanding.

Enhance Health was one of the largest brokers enrolling consumers in ACA Marketplace plans, reportedly registering over one million individuals in 2023. Many of the callers to Enhance and other such brokers were enrolled in fully subsidized ACA plans without even realizing they were signing up for health care. According to Georgetown University’s “litigation tracker, Turner et al v. Enhance, LLC et al. was a class action complaint alleging that certain fraudulent and misleading practices by insurance call centers to enroll people into Marketplace plans or switch their coverage constituted violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The fact that many of these “registered” insured individuals did not even exist has recently come to light. A report called “Unpacking the Great Obamacare Enrollment Fraud,” by the Paragon Health Institute, revealed that four to five million fraudulent enrollments occurred in 2024 alone, costing taxpayers $15–26 billion.

As the government shutdown continues, Senate Democrats are using the Working Families Tax Credit and broader Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies as leverage in negotiations. Rejecting stopgap funding bills, the Democrats want a guarantee that the corrupt-ridden ACA health insurance subsidies will be extended—and continue to support the health-care needs of the undocumented immigrants who have been illegally paroled into the country. In contrast, Republicans view the Democrats’ demands as a form of political hostage-taking—holding up government funding in order to push through what they believe are expensive, partisan priorities.  For the Republicans, the recalcitrant Democrats are prioritizing health-care handouts that will deepen the deficit and reward those who refuse to work.

It is clear that the Affordable Care Act is riddled with subsidies, political spin, and outright fraud, but even Republicans acknowledge that the system is cracking. Whether Democrats call it compassion or Republicans call it corruption, the reckoning is here, and reform is no longer a choice—it’s a necessity.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Fraud That Won’t Die: Obamacare’s Endless Deceptions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Crazed with resentment after Trump’s win last November, they decided nothing less than the term “Nazi” would do. You know who “they” are: The New York Times, The New Yorker, protesters funded by George Soros like Antifa, furious left-wing types, Hollywood lefties, and other such kinds. Enough said about these people. They’re the types who always look unhappy.

The Nazis are referred to as the greatest killers of all time. This is universally acknowledged but factually untrue; they are far down the list of great killers after Mao, Stalin (adored by the left), and a few Mongol chiefs. This is how I picture it in my mind: A roomful of ugly men and very homely women are meeting and are desperate to invent a crime committed by The Donald. “Eureka,” cries out a trans freak, “he’s a Nazi.” The room goes quiet, and then all hell breaks loose. It’s perfect, and everyone agrees that from now on Trump will be referred to as a Nazi. The meeting ends with smiles and congratulations all around.

“The fact that The Donald won an election and both houses plus the popular vote keeps him jolly while the anti-Trumpers seethe.”

Vilified by the left as an Epstein-like monster, but also a Nazi, The Donald does not seem to give a damn. The fact that he won an election and both houses plus the popular vote keeps him jolly while the anti-Trumpers seethe. The Nazi label, however, has worked, especially among those in the media whose dyslexia with originality is well-known. Capitalism has also come under attack, simply because The Donald is the quintessential capitalist. And so they cry and wail that the blond Nazi has reduced our values to financial ones alone. This is news to me, a naive young Greek who all these years believed that America was a socialist haven that became the richest country in the world because it forced people to be equal where wealth was concerned.

Never mind. All this is caused by desperation by those who do not believe in freedom. The fact that Trump won fair and square is unacceptable to them, because they know better, just like Stalin and Lenin and Mao did. All those unfunny but overpaid TV late-night comedians and those dumb gel-haired men and women who read the news over the networks know better than John Q. Public, and they resent that their opinions were ignored by the great unwashed last November. They are those who write editorials in papers like the Times and for the networks that preach to us, the stupid, that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But now we are living in an era of backlash against DEI; thus calling anyone we disagree with a Nazi is starting to feel very old hat. Actually it sounds childish, the kind of thing some black career criminal calls the cop who’s arresting him for mugging and injuring a very old lady. Nazi has become disposable.

But enough said about the lefty media. Normal, Democrat voting folk are flummoxed that The Donald keeps winning when they find his views so despicable. And it’s happening all over the place. Javier Milei has just won big in his midterms down Argentine way, a great surprise after he had squeezed them until they cried, while conservative populists have won in Poland and Czechia. The globalist elite who meet in Davos and Brussels and know that they know better than the rest of us have not only failed to bring prosperity with their programs; they have also failed miserably to invest in cultural harmony among the voters. Poles and Hungarians are proud of their legacy and culture, and resent the fact that the global elite consider them and some Nigerian wife-beater to be one and the same. In rainy old Britain the fact that you can say anything as long as you’re brown or black, but you go straight to the pokey if you say something against the government and you’re white, has the newly formed Reform party under the great Nigel Farage way up in front in the polls. The trouble is there are four years to go before an election, and as the saying goes, two weeks is a long time in politics.

Ever since the 1940s, institutional arrangements were designed to ensure the voters have no say in what they really want. The administrative state knew better, and to hell with those dumb voters. Europe and the European Union started it, and America followed. No longer, thanks to Donald Trump. This is the real reason why so many elites are going bonkers. A dumb blond from Queens with a long red necktie is curtailing their power. What they don’t see or admit is that finally democracy is working, but they’re not about to take it lying down. I’ll keep you posted.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Like It or Nazi appeared first on LewRockwell.

As we related in our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19, just before Dr. McCullough departed to Washington D.C. for his Senate testimony on November 19, 2020, he had a disturbing conversation with his church pastor, Andrew Forrest.

“We don’t understand what’s happening in our world,” McCullough explained. “My YouTube videos about early treatment were taken down, and then my planned WebEx conference with an Australian MP about treatment was hacked. Now my hospital administrators are acting like I’m out of line for accepting a U.S. Senator’s invitation to testify about the disease. It’s as though, for the first time in history, our medical system is opposed to caring for the sick. What on earth is going on?”

Andrew wasn’t at all surprised.

“There are times when evil prevails over good in a large way,” he said. “We know from the dark periods of history that this has happened before, and now it’s happening again. What you describe is Satan working in the hearts and minds of people, sowing fear, confusion, and anger. All you can do is keep trying to do good until it turns the tide. For your Senate speech, your message must be joyous and happy and clear, uncluttered by negative emotion. That way you will let the light of God shine forth in this darkness.

At the time Dr. McCullough told me this story, I thought that Pastor Forrest was being melodramatic. Surely, I thought, what he was describing was ordinary human fear and stupidity, and not the work of a supernatural being—a malevolent spirit called “Satan.”

Since then, I have been increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Pastor Forrest was onto something.

Even if one rejects the idea of the devil as a supernatural spirit that actually exists, a rational and impartial observer will still marvel at how large masses of humans will suddenly—as if infected with a spiritual contagion—participate in an irrational and highly destructive enterprise.

In researching my forthcoming book, Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessions, I examined how the “Devil” has been depicted in literature going back to the Bible.

The Greek word for devil, diábolos, means “the one who divides.” The English word “diabolic” comes from the Greek verb diabollein, which means “to tear apart.”

In addition to “tearing apart,” the devil is also often portrayed as a “destroyer.” In Goethe’s Faust, Mephistopheles famously introduces himself as follows:

Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint!
Und das mit Recht; denn alles was entsteht
Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht;

I am the spirit that constantly negates!
And rightly so; for everything that comes into being,
Deserves to be destroyed;

This morning, I thought of this famous German play when I read the news that Germany has rejected Russia’s offer of a non-aggression guarantee for EU & NATO. The German government wants to escalate.

In recent years, ranking members of the U.S. and E.U. governments have asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin is hellbent on reconstituting something like the old Soviet empire in Eastern and Central Europe. We are told that Putin aspires to occupy Berlin just like the Red Army did with the fall of the Third Reich in 1945.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov refuted this claim last week at the Third Minsk International Conference in Belarus. He stated that Russia would be happy to enter into a non-aggression pact. As he put it.

We have repeatedly said that we had, and have, no intention to attack any current NATO or EU member. We are ready to enshrine this position in future security guarantees for this part of Eurasia.

Germany rejected Lavrov’s offer out of hand. This was in keeping with NATO’s rejection in the fall of 2021 of Russia’s proposal for a Ukrainian neutrality deal. As NATO secretary Jens Stoltenberg told the EU Parliament in a video-recorded statement.

In the autumn of 2021, Russia actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what they sent us, and that was a precondition for not invading Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

Given the resounding success of the Austrian neutrality deal of 1955, which resulted in Red Army withdrawing from the country and respecting Austrian neutrality ever since, it was obvious to me that an Austrian-style neutrality deal was by far the best arrangement for Ukraine.

I know about Austrian neutrality because I lived in the country for a total of fifteen years. Neutrality has been an enormous blessing for Austria and was a key reason for Vienna’s cosmopolitan, open, laid back atmosphere until 2020, when the Austrian government was captured by the globalist gangsters who ran the pandemic response.

If the West had accepted the Russian proposal for a Ukrainian neutrality deal, and the Russians subsequently violated it, then the West would have had a clear casus belli. Consider the extreme irrationality of what was implied in the rejection of Ukrainian neutrality, which can be expressed as follows.

We cannot accept Russia’s proposal for Ukrainian neutrality because if Russia later violates it, we will have to go to war with Russia. It’s better to go to war with Russia now instead of risking the possibility of having to go to war with Russia later.

This was the same diabolic “logic” that was applied during the pandemic, when hospitalized COVID-19 patients were denied ivermectin because—according to hospital administrators—taking ivermectin could be “dangerous.” As one brave nurse put it in a video about this atrocity,

How could trying ivermectin be worse than dying of COVID-19?

The assertion “Vladimir Putin aspires to conquer Europe” resembles the following false and contradictory propositions that have long been a feature of public discourse in the West.

• The Earth is burning up from human induced climate change, even though there is much evidence that the earth has, at various times in the past, been much hotter than it is today. After insisting for decades that the earth would become uninhabitable due to human-induced climate change, Bill Gates recently proclaimed that it wouldn’t. This may have something to do with the fact that he is going to need a hell of a lot more electrical power to get a return on his recent, massive investments in A.I.
• Race is an essential feature of one’s identity, and racism is systemic. This became evident to millions during the U.S. presidency of Barack Obama, a black man who somehow persuaded racist America to elect him president.
• White Nationalists pose a major threat to American society, even though though they have no money and occupy no notable positions in the government, military, media, education, the entertainment industry, or the financial industry.
• American society contains many minority victim groups. Individuals who identify with these groups should be given preferential treatment and be promoted to positions of power so that the powerful people who appointed them can signal their virtue.
• Sexual ‘orientation’ is an essential feature of one’s identity, and one should express this in public—unless one is ‘cisgender’ and ‘heteronormative’ in one’s sexual ‘orientation.’
• Donald Trump is a fascist in league with Vladimir Putin. A U.S. president must seek war with Russia instead of seeking peaceful and cooperative endeavors that would benefit both the American and Russian people. Peace is war.
• SARS-CoV-2 must be contained with lockdowns, masks, and social distancing, even though—as Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell correctly pointed out in March 2020—the virus had already spread far beyond being contained.
• Early treatment for COVID-19 must be suppressed at all costs. It’s better for patients to die in hospital instead of taking FDA-approved drugs for early home treatment to avoid dying in hospital.
• Policemen are agents of systemic racism; George Floyd was martyred by one. Everyone must stay at home to prevent the spread of Covid unless they wish to participate in a BLM riot.
• Everyone must get the COVID-19 vaccine, even if they have already had the illness, and even though the vaccine doesn’t stop infection and transmission. Adolescent males are not at a significant risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis, even though thousands have been diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis—a side effect officially acknowledged by the CDC.
• Gender dysphoria is common among minors and should be medically treated with hormones and surgery, even though it is has long been generally recognized that minors do not have sufficient awareness and judgement to make major irrevocable decisions, and are not allowed to consume alcohol until they are 21-years old.
• Though modern medicine can ‘transition’ or ‘reassign’ a human from one sex to the other, there is no such thing as ‘biological’ sex. That said, ‘transitioning’ from one’s ‘assigned’ sex to the other requires receiving high doses of hormones and surgeries that cost millions of dollars.

All of the above assertions—which are Articles of Faith among tens of millions in the West—are false. In my forthcoming book Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessions—I examine the origins of these false propositions and the powerful people who have propagated them.

In the case of Russia, it is the U.S. government that has sought a military confrontation, and not the other way around. While the U.S. government continues to insist it is forbidden for Russia to deploy military forces against Ukraine to protect Russian national security, the U.S. government is currently preparing for possible military action against Venezuela on the grounds that the Venezuelan government is injuring U.S. national security.

This kind of conduct recalls the famous rhetorical question, “Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the plank in your own eye?”

Since 2014 at the latest, U.S. military-intelligence complex has systematically baited Russia to invade Ukraine with the aspiration that Russia would sink into an Afghanistan-style quagmire. As Hillary Clinton put it in a Feb. 2022 MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow.

Remember, the Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980. It didn’t end well for the Russians…but the fact is, that a very motivated, and then funded, and armed insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Clinton didn’t stop to think that the collateral damage to the Ukrainian people would be astronomical. She also didn’t stop to think that the U.S. funded and armed Mujahideen—guys like Osama bin Laden who didn’t serve the U.S. very well after their adventure in Afghanistan.

As for what would happen to the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian soldiers, it was clear from Clinton’s interview that she hadn’t given them the slightest thought. Her affect and statements reminded me of how Edmund Burke characterized the Jacobins in his essay, Reflections on the Revolution in France:

They have perverted in themselves and in those who listen to them all the well-placed sympathies of the human breast.

The hard-hearted lunatics who run U.S. and E.U. foreign policy are delighted for the Ukrainians to fight Russia to the death of every Ukrainian man. Some Ukrainian soldiers have realized that this is happening, and they have recorded videos of themselves expressing despair as they are sent to a certain death on the front. Yesterday I saw such a video and it instantly brought me to tears.

Another conspicuous feature of the guys who run the U.S. and E.U. is their habit of accusing people of doing what they themselves are doing and aspiring to do. Psychologists call this “projection,” and it is a common habit among psychopaths.

A historical irony—perhaps even a paradox—lies at the heart of our current state of affairs in the West. When I was in graduate school I read a lot of literature about Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Dostoevsky’s Demons and Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita depict the devil visiting Russia and possessing its spirit. The latter novel inspired Mick Jagger to write “Sympathy for the Devil,” with the sinister lines.

Stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tsar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank, held a general’s rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

I wonder if, after destroying Russia between 1917-1991, the Devil departed that ruined country and took up residence in the West, which he found easy to possess because our Cold War victory resulted in us becoming arrogant, ignorant, and complacent.

We in the West have long been in the habit of assuming that we are the good guys, but are we really?

Is it possible that—for all their faults—the Russians are now the defenders of Western Civilization, while our leaders in the West are its destroyers?

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Are the U.S. and E.U. Governments Satanic? appeared first on LewRockwell.