Lew Rockwell Institute

The post Back To Bagram? Trump Threatens To Re-Occupy Afghanistan! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Daniel McAdams

The post What Everyone’s Missing On The Jimmy Kimmel Firing appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

John Leake

The post The Battle Between Light and Darkness is Joined appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this episode of The Alex Marlow Show, Alexander engages in a deep conversation with Mike Benz, discussing the impact and legacy of Charlie Kirk, a prominent figure in conservative activism. The discussion delves into Kirk’s influence on young voters, his role in building Turning Point USA, and the tragic circumstances surrounding his assassination. Benz and Marlow explore the broader implications of political violence, the role of educational institutions in shaping political discourse, and the challenges of maintaining free speech in an increasingly polarized environment. They also touch on the influence of online communities and the need for counter-narratives to prevent radicalization. The episode concludes with a call for transparency and reform in both domestic and international political strategies.

Escalation of the Strategy of Tension

The post Exclusive: Mike Benz on Who Funds Trantifa Terror, Charlie Kirk’s Legacy appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Left constantly subjects us to propaganda about the alleged danger posed by “climate change” or “global warming.” They assure us that we must “follow the science,” which, it is claimed, has proved that the rise in global temperatures caused by fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, will soon result in catastrophe unless we “green” the economy. Under brain-dead “President” Joe Biden, extensive steps were taken towards “greening.” Fortunately, Donald Trump has rolled back some of these steps, but the constant barrage of the Left is a continuing menace.

The Left reacts with horror to any attempt to question “climate change.”  They say that skeptics should be denied their right of free speech, just as they called for the suppression of those who warned of the dangers of Covid vaccinations, who it turned out were entirely correct. Noam Chomsky has said that Trump’s efforts in his first term to end “greening” made him a worse war criminal than Hitler.

One problem many people have is that they find it difficult to evaluate the alleged evidence offered by scientists who claim that “climate change” poses a dire threat, but in his remarkable book Fossil Future (Portfolio2022), Alex Epstein changed the terms of the debate about the danger of “global warming” and the alleged need to take drastic action in response to this. The opponents either question the evidence that disaster impends or argue that the threat can be handled without revamping the economy.

Epstein thinks that the danger from global warming has been exaggerated, but though he presents extensive evidence in support of this, his main contribution lies elsewhere. He argues that modern civilization depends on fossil fuels and that far from curtailing their use, we need to spread them to the impoverished parts of the world. So great are the benefits from using the fuels that only a true “end of the world” nightmare caused by CO2 emission could require that we shift to other energy sources, and despite the alarmists’ caterwauling, this nightmare is most unlikely to occur. Moreover, Epstein holds that the benefits of fossil fuels are so obvious that only a defect in thinking could have induced people to ignore them. He is a philosopher as well as an energy economist, and he expertly identifies the false thought pattern that has led to our current confusions.

Epstein says, “Whenever we hear about what the ‘experts’ think, we need to keep in mind that most of us have no direct access to what most expert researchers in the field think. We are being told what experts think through a system of institutions and people…. Understanding how this system, which I call our ‘knowledge system,’ works and how it can go wrong is the key to being able to spot when what we’re told the ‘experts’ think is very wrong—about fossil fuels or anything else.”

On the issue of energy, Epstein argues that the system has gone very wrong, indeed, owing to the fact that its leading lights are in the grip of a philosophy that views human beings as an upsetting intrusion on the earth: through their feverish pursuit of growth, people have interfered with the “delicate balance” of nature. Having done so, people must repent and “green” the economy, though some experts opine that it would be better to get rid of us altogether. Concerning this bizarre philosophy, Epstein remarks: “Why does our knowledge system always expect extreme negative impacts from cost-efficient energy’s side-effects and always expect that we will be unable to master these impacts? Because of a false assumption that leads anyone holding it to expect that all forms of significant impact on nature will inevitably be self-destructive. I call this the ‘delicate nurturer’ assumption … [which is] that Earth, absent human impact, exists in an optimal, nurturing ‘delicate balance’ that is as stable, sufficient, and safe as we can hope to expect.”

You might be inclined to object that scientific findings deal with facts, not philosophies: if “climate scientists” predict that continued global warming will have dire consequences, don’t we have to judge their arguments strictly as they stand, without regard to their proponents’ views about the proper place of human beings, however repellent we may find these views? Epstein responds that predictions are far different from claims about what has happened in the past, which can often, though not always, be assessed objectively. Climate predictions are for the most part highly speculative, and the antihuman ideology of the “catastrophists,” as Epstein calls the climate alarmists, should incline us to view what they say with doubt, all the more so if they have wrongly predicted catastrophes in the past. “Such predictions [about climate] necessarily rely on highly complex science and models that are difficult for non-researchers to assess … it is both far easier and highly informative to assess our knowledge system’s, including designated experts’, track record of climate prediction” (the “designated experts” are those whom the system treats as authoritative). One of these “experts,” Michael Mann, famed for his controversial “hockey stick” graph, is weighed in the balance and found wanting: “Designated expert Michael Mann has written: ‘We probably already exceed the [planet’s] carrying capacity by a factor of eight.’”  It is unlikely that someone with this opinion will be eager to suggest policies that promote human welfare, and the same holds true of the notorious Paul Ehrlich, who has many times wrongly predicted disaster but whose oracular status nevertheless remains undiminished. Mann, by the way, is one of those who wants to suppress and even imprison climate skeptics. Why listen to them?

If the designated experts were not blinded by partisan passion, what would they see? The answer, Epstein says, is that Nature untouched by man is no “delicate balance” but rather an ever-dynamic, often hostile place. To survive and flourish in it, we must specialize in what we produce and use powerful machines in doing so. Such machines immensely multiply our natural energy and enable us to master the environment to our advantage. Only the fossil fuels— viz., coal, oil, and natural gas—can be used to produce these machines in a cost-efficient way. Wind and solar power are paltry by comparison. Hydroelectric and nuclear power fare rather better, but even they are no match for the fossil fuels, and furthermore, fossil fuels are often required to produce and implement the other forms of energy.

Epstein says about the fossil fuels: “Contrary to our anti-impact, anti-energy knowledge system these are not trivial benefits that are already overwhelmed by fossil fuels’ negative side-effects on the livability of our world—they are fundamental to the livability of our world. The current benefit of the world’s massive use of ultra-cost-effective fossil fuel energy is a radical increase in the productive ability of billions of people—via ultra-cost-effective fossil-fueled machine labor and the enormous amount of mental labor it frees up, along with fossil fuel materials—that makes the world unnaturally livable, i.e., conducive to human flourishing.”

It is here that the primary source of the book’s originality lies, together with the author’s cogent analysis of the conflicting opinions’ philosophical underpinnings. Other critics of the global catastrophists propose palliative measures to cope with what they deem a much lesser threat than their opponents envision; they suggest, for example, a shift to nuclear power and the limitation of such pollution as remains through “cap and trade,” a carbon tax, and the like. Epstein, by contrast, is uncompromising. Not only does he want to maintain the use of fossil fuels; he relishes the prospect of the extended use of these fuels, particularly in poor areas of the world, where people without this resource languish. “Since 1980, the percentage of humanity living on less than $2 a day has gone from 42 percent to under 10 percent today. This wondrous development is the result of increasing and expanding productivity, which is driven by the increasing and expanding use of fossil-fueled machine labor and the enormous amount of mental labor it frees up. But there is still far more progress to be had…. Expanding fossil fuel use will enable everyone, especially the world’s poorest people, to become more productive and prosperous.”

But has Epstein dismissed the perils of untoward climate changes too quickly? Don’t floods that result from a rise in temperature pose real dangers, for example? Epstein responds by again appealing to the benefits of technology, made possible by fossil fuels. Technology enables us to achieve what Epstein calls “climate mastery.” He cites in this connection a telling statistic. Despite the temperature rise that occurred in the twentieth century, deaths from climate have sharply decreased. “In reality, dangerous temperatures—which overwhelmingly come from too much cold, not too much heat—are a smaller danger than ever thanks to two forces: fossil-fueled climate mastery and modestly warming temperatures…. Before human beings had fossil-fueled machines to master dangerous climates, they were overwhelmed by natural temperature dangers, both heat and (especially) cold…. Heat-related deaths are a much bigger problem in the unempowered world today, which is yet another reason why empowerment is a moral imperative.”

Let’s do everything we can to stop the “climate change” fanatics from destroying our economy!

The post The ‘Climate Change’ Danger appeared first on LewRockwell.

The consensus holds there will be another bubble after the Everything Bubble pops, but this might be misplaced confidence in the godlike powers of central banks.

The consensus holds that central banks–the Federal Reserve in the US–will gradually inflate away the world’s rising debt burden while propping up assets and the economy with the usual bag of monetary magic: suppress interest rates so debt service costs ease, increase the money supply and credit to prop up asset bubbles in stocks and housing, and thereby generate growth in consumption via the elixir of “the wealth effect:” as assets loft higher, everyone feels richer and so they borrow and spend more.

Well, not everyone, because only the top 10% own enough assets to feel “the wealth effect,” but since they account for 50% of all consumer spending, that’s enough to maintain the status quo, in which the bottom 90% lose ground (especially the bottom 60%) and the top 10% are doing splendidly.

Should the bubble du jour pop, no worries, central banks will rush to the rescue as they have for 25 years, goosing money supply and credit, opening the floodgates of liquidity, pushing interest rates down so everyone and every entity can borrow and spend / speculate more, more, more.

This is a nice story, and proponents have the past 25 years of history to back it up. But beneath the surface appeal of this story–a Hollywood ending every time, as the Fed will inflate another bubble, one after the other in an endless loop–there are stirrings in the deep that suggest the Everything Bubble is the last bubble of its kind, and attempts to inflate another bubble when this one pops will collapse the entire rickety contraption.

In other words, everything is forever until it is no more. Let’s consider some points that speak to the nature of speculative bubbles.

1. Speculative bubbles don’t require central banks increasing money supply and manipulating interest rates. Recency bias leads us to imagine that central bank policies inflate and pop speculative bubbles via monetary levers, but the colossal South Seas Bubble in 1720 that popped with such devastating consequences arose and fell in the pre-central bank era. The madness of crowds–or more specifically, the greed-driven madness of greedy crowds is the core driver of speculative frenzies / bubbles.

2. Confidence is the foundation of speculative frenzies. Yes, confidence, as in a con. Back in 1720, the South Seas Company was supported by the establishment, and so confidence was high that it was a can’t lose proposition. The riches skimmed by early investors encouraged this confidence.

Today, confidence that the Fed will rush to the rescue should the Everything Bubble pop is high, as is the confidence that the AI Bubble isn’t a bubble because AI is going to change everything and that transformation will be immensely profitable–if not for the gold miners, then for those selling the miners picks and shovels.

3. Quasi-religious fervor, confidence, staggering gains and speculative frenzies all meld into one overflowing river, sweeping all before it. The primary force here is the belief that this isn’t irrational, or speculative–it’s all based on solid facts. That this was the exact same belief that powered bubbles in 1720, 1925-1929, 1998-2000 and 2004-2008 is brushed aside, for as we all know, this time it’s different. Of course it is, but perhaps not in the way that the consensus anticipates.

Just as a break from all the fun and games, let’s consider a chart of M2 money supply, generally conceded as the driver of stocks rising, and compare it to GDP–a measure of economic expansion–and the S&P 500 stock index (SPX).

It’s interesting to note the ratio of M2 and GDP. That money supply and economic expansion would rise together qualifies as common sense, but what makes this interesting is the slippage in the ratio.

For two decades, GDP was roughly double M2. In 1981, M2 was $1.6 trillion and GDP was $3.1 trillion. In 2001, M2 was $5 trillion and GDP was $10.5 trillion. So far so good.

In Q1 2009, at the bottom of the stock market crash / Global Financial Crisis, there was bit of slippage: M2 was $8.4 trillion and GDP was $14.4 trillion–no longer 1 to 2.

By the pre-Covid high watermark of Q1 2020, M2 was $15.5 trillion and GDP was $21.7 trillion. After the Covid crash and stimulus, here in Q2 2025 M2 is $22.1 trillion and GDP is $30.3 trillion– 1 to 1.37.

There’s a phrase that describes this: diminishing returns. Goosing money supply is no longer goosing GDP to the same degree it once did.

Meanwhile, back in Speculative Frenzy-Land, the SPX is up 10X, from the biblical low in Q1 2009 of 666 to today’s high of 6660 (well, 6656, but close enough).

Read the Whole Article

The post Is This the Last Bubble? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Policymakers are preparing for the worst-case scenario from their perspective, the US’ expulsion from the Eastern Hemisphere, hence their new goal of urgently achieving strategic autarky in the Americas.

Politico cited unnamed US sources to report in early September that the draft National Defense Strategy will radically break from its predecessors, including Trump 1.0’s own from 2018, by prioritizing the Western Hemisphere over containing China and Russia. If this grand strategic pivot makes it into the final version, which is likely since only comparatively minor points are usually changed during this process, then it would be accounted for by recent events in Eurasia prompting a sea change in US calculations.

To be sure, the US is still expected to pursue the containment of China and Russia, which can collectively be referred to as the Sino-Russo Entente. It’ll just be done more through proxy, AUKUS+ vis-à-vis China and NATO vis-à-vis Russia, than through direct measures like before. The predicted injection of Western influence into the geostrategic Central Asian region between them via NATO member Turkiye through the new TRIPP Corridor will complement the aforesaid measures to stir trouble for them on the cheap.

The US’ evolving modus operandi is to “Lead From Behind” by empowering regional partners through ISR aid, logistics support, and arms deals in order to advance shared geostrategic interests without risking another imbroglio for itself. The preexisting multipolar processes from before the special operation have accelerated in the 3,5 years since and consequently reached the point where a return to unipolarity is impossible even though complex multipolarity has yet to emerge and might still take decades to do so.

The Biden Administration’s “dual containment” of the Sino-Russo Entente failed while Trump 2.0’s Eurasian grand strategy of a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia in order to deprive China of the resources required for turbocharging its superpower trajectory also just failed as explained here. Despite high hopes that the latter would succeed, the writing was on the wall in hindsight that Putin likely wouldn’t agree to major territorial and/or security concessions in Ukraine in exchange for such ties.

In parallel with the failure of these policies, the SCO and BRICS began playing more complementary roles in transforming global governance, beginning with the impressive diversification of some members’ economic-financial ties vis-à-vis the West since the start of Russia’s special operation. American strategists accordingly calculated that the restoration of unipolarity is impossible and more complex multipolarity might thus characterize the coming years so it’s time to prioritize the ultimate backup plan.

Focusing more on the Western Hemisphere than on directly containing the Sino-Russo Entente is meant to reverse the decline of the US’ unipolar hegemony in its half of the world. The goal is to reassert its traditional hegemonic status via the “Fortress America” strategy in order to dominate the Western Hemisphere’s resources and people, thus enabling the US to achieve strategic autarky should it be pushed out of the Eastern Hemisphere, however unlikely that possibility might appear to be at present.

The logic behind the US’ reported draft National Defense Strategy is therefore that policymakers are preparing for the worst-case scenario from their perspective, the US’ expulsion from the Eastern Hemisphere. This is due to them accepting that the multipolar advances of recent years are irreversible and that the cost of attempting to directly decelerate their future progress entails too high of a risk of world war. It’s a pragmatic approach but it remains to be seen whether it’ll really defuse global tensions.

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

The post Explaining the Logic Behind the US’ Reported Draft National Defense Strategy appeared first on LewRockwell.

As an Economist and student of the Constitution, I can tell you with utmost confidence that the Dystopia described in the title is accurate if Congress is not changed by election or prosecution. I am referring to the House, because the Senate has been controlled by Big Money since the Coup of 1913 and the People can do little to change it.

Most people, and officials in both parties, don’t have any understanding of the reality of our Economic Situation. We are on the brink of Dystopia. Look it up.

We missed one civil war by the skin of our teeth when Trump was elected. But this only bought a little time for him to root out the Criminal Enterprise, which is most of government, and follow the Constitution. Please remember the prior sentence because these simple words are seminal. It has been my experience that a majority of The People are economic illiterates, and are ignorant and apathetic about politics and the Constitution. But they do spout talking points like a robot, and, being successfully brainwashed, are almost impossible to change.

This article is not about what President Trump must do to restore the Constitutional Republic, that is for my next paper. My concern in this paper is to tell you what YOU can do so you don’t end up living on the street, dodging bullets during a Civil War.

Let me tell you why I am not overstating my case. Even if Trump’s Grandiose Programs succeed, he will ultimately fail near term, Economically, because he has not investigated, prosecuted and jailed corrupt members of Congress and bureaucrats of the Administrative State. Large portions of the Federal Government are a Criminal Enterprise, and must be rooted out to comply with the Constitution. Last but not least, the role of the States and their Federal government must be reversed to be Constitutionally-compliant again.

You must remember when Biden’s shock troops, Antifa and Black Lives Matter, burned down the cities and their followers rioted because the criminal George Floyd died in police hands. NONE of these criminals were prosecuted. All of these criminal actions are returning with the political assassination of Charles Kirk and the attempted assassinations of President Trump. It may not take much more for the political right to respond, starting a Civil War. Please remember the Democrats aka Communists brought in an army of Illegal Invaders totaling more than 21 million. Our military is not currently large enough to handle a force this large; a draft may be required.

Civil War or not, you must arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself and family from the Communist gangs. You don’t stop a gang with a pistol, you need an AR15 or 12 gauge shotgun. If you are living in a Blue City, move. Stock up on food and emergency supplies. Supermarket food does not last long enough, so buy emergency rations that last 25 years. Remember Supermarkets will be looted And will not be open during any conflict.

Don’t forget their individual attacks of brutality on innocents and the failure of Blue city prosecutors to keep even repeat offenders in jail because theydon’t use Cash Bail. Communist cities are being funded unconstitutionally by the Federal Government.

You may be one of the few being protected by government, but you can’t count on it and things change constantly during a Civil War or Guerilla War. It may take only one more Charles Kirk-type assassination to push the MAGA people to retaliate in kind.  Cutting off government funding of Communists will likely infuriate Communists  and provoke attacks on Patriotic Americans.

You must wake up and admit that we are living in very dangerous times.

The post Live on the Street Begging for Food and Dodging Bullets in a Civil War, or Fire Corrupt Congress…Your Choice! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many critics of Kirk posted content on social media in which they said rude things about Kirk—and even about his family members—while expressing delight about Kirk’s death.  Not surprisingly, many of Kirk’s supporters—and many other ordinary people—found these comments offensive and reprehensible.

Perhaps as part of an effort to exploit the situation to improve her own political fortunes, US Attorney General Pam Bondi then declared that she, a government prosecutor, will “go after” those who engage in what she called “hate speech.”

“Hate speech,” however, does not exist. At all. That’s a phrase the Left invented to define speech the Left doesn’t like as outside the legal protections of Bill of Rights. Put another way, the concept of “hate speech” was invented to justify state-enforced censorship of speech. That Bondi buys into this nonsense is made clear by Bondi’s pledge to “go after” people who are guilty of this hate-speech “crime” that Bondi apparently imagines in her head.

These comments, coming from a sitting Attorney General, are extremely problematic, to say the least. The very fact that Bondi unironically uses the term “hate speech” illustrates how deeply immersed she is in the culture of coercion and despotism that permeates the Washington ruling class. Any politician who promotes the concept of “hate speech” should be considered an enemy of our most fundamental natural rights, and his or her political career deserves to be ended permanently.

There Is No Such Thing as Hate Speech

Bondi’s dangerous comments on so-called hate speech came as part of her Monday appearance on the Katie Miller podcast. When asked by the host if colleges and universities are somehow complicit in Kirk’s murder, Bondi agreed and stated:

on a broader level, the anti-Semitism—what’s been happening at college campuses around this country— it’s disgusting, it’s despicable and we’ve been fighting that, we’ve been fighting these universities left and right and that’s not going to stop.  There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society …. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Miller then gave Bondi an opportunity to clarify her outlandish comments. But Bondi doubled down. Miller said “do you see more law enforcement going after these groups, who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?” Bondi responded: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech…”

Bondi’s comments are even worse when we read them in the full context because she’s connecting her assault on speech not just to nasty comments from Kirk-haters. She also seeks to justify prosecution of alleged “anti-Semites,” by which she really means people who don’t like the socialist State of Israel.

On this latter topic, the administration has already attempted to legally persecute—and prosecute— activists who are guilty of the non-crime of criticizing the Israeli state. One of the most famous examples is Rümeysa Öztürk who  was supposedly arrested for supporting violent protests. No evidence, however, has ever been presented to this effect. It is now clear that Öztürk was arrested for the “crime” of writing an op-ed critical of Israel. In other words, the administration launched legal action against Öztürk for alleged hate speech against the Israeli state.

Perhaps feeling emboldened by the President’s support for attacks on op-ed writers, Bondi then pledged to “target” and “go after” people who say mean things on the internet.

This, of course, is blatantly contrary to the American Bill of Rights and more than 300 years of classical-liberal thinking. Frankly, if Bondi fancies herself as some sort of defender of American freedoms, she needs remedial lessons on the topic.

Speech Rights Are Property Rights

Importantly, the right to free speech is not something invented by the US Constitution or federal judges. The freedom of speech is a property right. It stems from the basic, natural right to own ourselves and to own property. That is, the right to use your body to express certain opinions stems from the basic, natural right of self-ownership.

To be sure, there are reasonable, non-state limitations on this right. A person cannot make speeches or express opinions in places where the property owner does not allow it. For example, a person cannot distribute political op-eds in the grocery store if the store owner says “no.” One cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) because it can be assumed the theater’s owner frowns on that sort of thing.  On the other hand, if we respect property rights we are forced to conclude that a person is totally and utterly free to express opinions in a time, place, publication, or forum where the owner does not prohibit it.

Pam Bondi may not like it when people criticize the state of Israel or cheer the murder of Charlie Kirk on a privately-owned web site. But whether or not that person is allowed to say things in that place is not something the US government can legitimately regulate.

The only legitimate limitation on free speech is when that speech involves a real and specific threat against another person. On this, the US federal courts were more or less correct when, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court concluded that speech can only be limited when that speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” Saying “I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead” doesn’t even come close to that standard. Neither does saying “I hope members of the IDF get killed.” Vague attacks on foreign armies are a form of free speech, pure and simple.

Even the idea of incitement lends itself to abuse, since it is not always clear when speech is encouraging something in general, or if it involves a specific, imminent threat. Moreover, people are not automatons who simply act out whatever some other person on the internet says should happen. Not every call for violence is necessarily an incitement to “imminent lawless action.”

It is clear, however, that in her comments to Katie Miller, Pam Bondi is not concerned by either legal standards or by property rights. As she is a politician, we should not be at all surprised to discover that she is likely to be more concerned with sounding “tough” to pander to certain interest groups.

Bondi’s embrace of the absurd notion of “hate speech” is also dangerous because it is so vague, undefinable, and open to abuse. Whether or not speech is “hate” speech is totally subjective. What is one man’s hate is another man’s sensible observation. Any practicing Christian sees this every time the Left claims that opposition to gay marriage is a form of hate speech. The Bondi facsimiles on the Left would love nothing more than to “target” and “go after” any Christian clergyman who criticizes gay marriage from the pulpit.

If left up to government courts and government prosecutors, virtually anything can be defined as hate speech. This has been clear since the early days of the “hate speech” phenomenon more than twenty years ago. For example, in a lecture in 2004, historian Ralph Raico pointed out the inherent malleability of the hate-speech canard:

Hate speech can include everything that you might think of including. Hate speech might very well include—it could be argued in court—doing away with welfare in New York City. One might say, “Well, that’s hate speech because the implication is clearly that we should do away with welfare for minority populations, which are the great bulk of the people who get welfare in New York City.”

In other words, opposition to the welfare state could easily be defined as “racist” and therefore “hate speech.” All it takes is a sympathetic judge or a despotic AG like Pam Bondi.

Now, to the credit of many rank-and-file of the MAGA movement, Bondi has faced substantial blowback for position. Matt Walsh—to name just one MAGA activist who has denounced Bondi’s comments—has called for her to be fired.

Bondi then backtracked and rather disingenuously attempted to claim that she was really only talking about speech that calls for violence. She later claimed: ““Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”  This was little more than damage control.

It’s unlikely, however, that Bondi will be removed for declaring the First Amendment null and void. Donald Trump has shown a willingness to be “flexible” when it comes to the rule of law in that he is more than happy to use the same immoral and unconstitutional methods used by his own predecessors, both Left and Right.

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

The post ‘Hate Speech’ Isn’t Real and Pam Bondi Is an Enemy of Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

Her Ukrainian grandfather served as a Nazi propagandist during the Second World War, promoting the Final Solution and mass murder of Jews.

Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former foreign minister, has been appointed as her country’s special representative for the reconstruction of Ukraine. It is a dubious “homecoming” for the rabidly Russophobic Freeland.

Her Ukrainian grandfather served as a Nazi propagandist during the Second World War, promoting the Final Solution and mass murder of Jews and other Slavic peoples. Mykhailo Chomiak evaded prosecution by fleeing to Canada after the war, like thousands of other Nazi war criminals who were brought over on ratlines set up by the Canadian authorities.

During her tenures as Canada’s foreign and finance ministers and deputy prime minister, Freeland distinguished herself as one of the most ardent Western supporters of the Kiev regime, ramping up military aid and demanding tougher sanctions on Moscow. Her visceral hostility towards Russia is explained by her Nazi family heritage.

Freeland’s appointment this week as special envoy to Ukraine is a deplorable decision by her boss, Prime Minister Mark Carney. Carney, who took over from the hapless Justin Trudeau, is a godfather to one of Freeland’s children, so her new job smacks of nepotism.

For a proper postwar reconstruction of Ukraine, Freeland’s role does not bode well. Given her ideological and personal closeness with the Kiev regime, Freeland’s influence on directing the anticipated huge reconstruction funds will only entrench the regime and its vile Nazi proclivities.

During the recent conflict, Freeland has been holding daily telephone briefings with Denys Shmyhal, Ukraine’s former PM and now minister of defense. Shmyhal is legendary for running corruption schemes with the billions of dollars that Canada and other NATO countries have pumped into the Kiev regime over the past three years.

Freeland’s appointment as reconstruction führer will ensure that the money racket continues for her Kiev cronies. Her patronage will obstruct a much-needed clearing out of the Nazi ideology and corruption in Ukraine after the conflict ends. Her presence in Kiev will make a normalization of relations between Ukraine and Russia more problematic, which is probably why she wanted the envoy post.

She is well-qualified in her anti-Russian views. Freeland’s proud association with her Ukrainian grandfather, who died in 1984, and her blatant denials of his Nazi past, suggest she inherited his fascist politics toward Russia despite describing herself as a “Western liberal.”

Mykhailo (Michael) Chomiak was born in Galicia in 1905, in what was then Austria-Hungary. During the war, he was made editor of a Nazi propaganda newspaper, Kraków News (Krakivski Visti), in 1940. Nazi intelligence chief Emil Gassner ran the operation after the printing presses and offices were confiscated from a Jewish proprietor who was later murdered in the Belzec extermination camp in Poland. Chomiak’s Ukrainian-language newspaper advocated for the mass murder of Jews and Soviet citizens and was an important recruitment service for the Waffen-SS Galicia Division, taking in Ukrainian volunteers. The division was infamous for its sadistic cruelty in carrying out mass murder using methods that even the German overseers were squeamish about.

As the Soviet Red Army liberated Poland in 1944, Chomiak and his propagandist operation hurriedly relocated from Kraków to Vienna, where it continued churning out Nazi filth until the end of the war in May 1945, when the Soviet army raised the hammer and sickle over Berlin and Hitler’s bunker.

Following the defeat of the Third Reich, Freeland’s grandfather was taken in by Canada along with thousands of other Nazis. The Canadian authorities wanted to import the fascists to counterbalance other Eastern European emigrés who were supportive of the Soviet Union.

Also, as with other Western states, there was a latent sympathy for Nazi fascism in Canada’s political establishment. A shameful, little-known history of Canada is that the government set up ratlines similar to Argentina and other Latin American dictatorships to take in Nazi fugitives. The United States did the same with Operation Paperclip.

That legacy lives on today and is manifest in Canada’s hostile policy towards Russia, while supporting a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. It is a toxic condition of Russophobia shared by other Western capitals. It accounts for why the whole of NATO is at war with Russia in Ukraine and why diplomacy is obstructed at every turn.

Ironically, Canada promotes itself as a liberal, humanitarian champion, with a kinder image than the United States.

Canada’s hidden scandal blew up in September 2023 when a former Ukrainian Nazi stormtrooper, Jaroslav Hunka, was given a standing ovation in the Canadian parliament. Hunka had been a member of the notorious Waffen-SS Galicia division, the same division that Freeland’s grandfather propagandized for during the war.

It was an international fiasco for the Canadian government. The then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau groveled in apology over “a mistake.” The parliamentary speaker was forced to resign amid international condemnation.

Chrystia Freeland has never shown any shame. She indulges in historical falsification, claiming, against all the evidence, that Ukrainian collaborators in the Nazi genocide were not really supporters of the Third Reich but were fighting for Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. These are the same historical lies that are told to whitewash the bloodstained hands of Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, and other prominent Ukrainian Nazis, who have monuments and streets named after them today in Ukraine under a Jewish president, Vladimir “Conman” Zelensky.

When Freeland’s Nazi ancestry was first reported in Canadian newspapers back in 2017-2018, she blatantly denied the fact and claimed that it was “Russian disinformation” to discredit her. She should have been sacked for lying if the Canadian authorities had any integrity.

Obnoxiously, she continues to insist – like many Ukrainian Nazi descendants in Canada – that her grandfather was not a collaborator. She continues to assert that it is all just Russian disinformation. Her denials are contradicted by Canadian public records that prove beyond dispute that Michael Chomiak was the editor-in-chief of a Nazi newspaper aiding and abetting the Final Solution.

We might suppose that using the Big Lie technique is something that comes naturally to a Nazi scion.

Freeland’s appointment as Canada’s special envoy to Ukraine should be revoked. For a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, she is the least qualified person. Maybe that’s why certain NATO powers want her homecoming.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Canada’s Chrystia Freeland, Special Envoy to Ukraine… Nazi Ratline in Reverse appeared first on LewRockwell.

So many questions arise since a sniper with demonstrated skill assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk in broad daylight on Sept. 10 — this as he addressed a crowd of several thousand no less. We have only our questions as of now, and history suggests these may be all we will ever have as to the who and why of this very public crime. But we damn well better get on with the business of posing them: Questions, the right ones, have a power all their own.

Charlie Kirk’s murder abruptly confronts us with the disintegration of what little remains of any shared identity and purpose among Americans, with the force of ideology, the invisibility of power, how much may be left out or simply falsified when officials give accounts of politically momentous events and when media reproduce these accounts with no hint of questioning them. We find ourselves plunging well beyond the apple-pie authoritarianism that threatened a few years ago. No apple pie this time.

To begin at the beginning, who is Tyler Robinson, the 22–year-old formally charged Sept. 16 with murdering Kirk with a single shot fired from a .30–06 Winchester at considerable range? Who — the much larger question for its implications — was Charlie Kirk, the 31–year-old wunderkind of America’s conservative movement? At this point we have no certain answers in either case. We have, instead, what appear to be fraudulent narratives that are messily under construction even as we speak.

Tyler Robinson, by all accounts, was an upright student in the electrical apprenticeship program at Dixie Technical College in St. George, Utah, until Sept. 10. Churchgoing, “very considerate, quiet, respectful:” These are the descriptions of a neighbor in a Utah suburb called Washington. “He was a good kid,” Kristen Schwiermann added when she spoke to NBC News the day after Robinson was detained as a suspect. His grandmother called him “squeaky clean.”

The NBC report noted: “Robinson’s evolution from standout student to the subject of an FBI manhunt is not clear.” This is to put the point too mildly.

On Sept. 11 the FBI — admitting they had  no certainty on this point  — released two blurry photographs that showed someone in a stairwell at Utah Valley University, where Kirk was assassinated the previous day. A friend of Robinson’s saw them and remarked in a messaging platform called Discord that Robinson resembled the man in the photos. Robinson replied immediately, according to a widely circulated New York Times report, that “his ‘Doppelganger’ was trying to ‘get me in trouble.’” Somebody else on Discord then wrote, “Tyler killed Charlie!!!!”—this “apparently in jest,” as The Times rightfully reported.

The thought that this was anything other than a humorous exchange among friends is patently ridiculous, in my read. But matters nonetheless proceeded. Robinson was arrested at his home later that day. Initial reports had it that he turned himself in peaceably; we now read he is not cooperating.

The air has since been thick with innuendo. So far as one can make out, Robinson seems to be of mildly progressive political persuasions and, naturally enough, did not like Kirk. We read that he favors the sort of gender politics Kirk stood against. There are reports he, Robinson, has been romantically involved with a roommate who is transitioning from male to female. There are other reports that bullet casings found at the scene have, Luigi Mangione-style, inscriptions on them referencing video games with various anti-fascist and gender-related messages. OK, but strictly for the sake of argument. None of this comes even close to holding up as a motive.

“We’re trying to figure it out,” Spencer “We got him” Cox, Utah’s conservative governor, said on “Meet the Press” last Sunday—this as he explained how a clean-as–Gene college student, in a feat of exceptional marksmanship, turned into a deadly assassin after he was “deeply indoctrinated in leftist ideology.”

How and when did that happen, we are compelled to ask. There seems to be no record of any such conversion. Here is Cox elaborating his case:

Friends have confirmed that there was kind of that deep, dark internet, the Reddit culture, and these other dark places of the internet where this person was going deep.

Deep and dark places and going deep, just as friends have confirmed. I’m sorry, Governor. This starts to come over like “Invaders from Mars,” that 1953 Cold war classic, wherein plain-vanilla suburbanites fall into a pit and aliens from outer space turn them into enemies of the state by putting mind-control buttons in the backs of their necks.

Brilliant, if you go on for that sort of thing. And I suppose some people do.

Governor Cox has it that Tyler Robinson acted alone. As if to confirm this, we now read he plotted his plan of action for a week and wrote text messages to this effect beforehand. President Trump and his adjutants say — I may as well quote The Times again — “the suspect was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives.” Here is Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, speaking apoplectically on Fox News Sept. 12:

There is a domestic terrorist movement in this country. When you see these organized doxxing campaigns, where the left calls people enemies of the republic, says they’re fascists, says they’re Nazis, says they’re evil, and then prints their addresses, what do you think they are trying to do? They are trying to inspire someone to murder them. That is their objective. That is their intent.

Questions, questions. Is Robinson the lone gunman, the Lee Harvey Oswald of the case? Or does he belong to some dangerous movement on a murder spree? What is this “left” Miller and his employer talk of incessantly? We do not know even this much. But these questions lead to the obvious conclusion — obvious to me, in any case  — that the official account of the Kirk assassination is still under construction and good old American paranoia and ideological imperatives mix to make the mortar that will bind its bricks together.

This seems even truer in Kirk’s case than in Robinson’s.

Charlie Kirk was a true-blue conservative and ranked very high among President Trump’s most prominent and influential allies. He was handy enough in the cause of this or that propaganda op. His movement, Turning Point USA, had received millions of dollars in support over the years from Zionist donors — Israel’s American cutouts, as some commentators have it. He stood for freedom, truth, Judeo–Christian values, and the Zionist cause and against, among very much else, liberal censorship and wokery of all kinds. This is the Charlie Kirk the narrative- builders speak of now that Kirk is dead. It is the Kirk you can read about in any mainstream publication you may come across.

It was none other than Benjamin Netanyahu who set the ball in motion. In a bit of timing many have questioned, the Israeli prime minister went on “X” with prayers for Kirk within a matter of minutes of his death. Two hours later he posted this:

Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom. A lion-hearted friend of Israel, he fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo–Christian civilization. I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel. Sadly, that visit will not take place. We lost an incredible human being. His boundless pride in America and his valiant belief in free speech will leave a lasting impact. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.

A day later Bill Ackman, the Zionist billionaire, followed Netanyahu on “X” to boast of his close friendship with Kirk. “I feel incredibly privileged to have spent a day and shared a meal with @charliekirk11 this summer,” Ackman wrote. “He was a giant of a man.”

On Sept. 15, J.D. Vance sat behind Kirk’s desk as host of “the Charlie Kirk Show.” Here is Stephen Miller, speaking to the vice-president on that occasion:

We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination, to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.

Kirk as a martyr to the right-wing and Zionist causes: To term this shocking hypocrisy is wholly inadequate. As Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil reported in The Grayzone Sept. 12, by mid-summer Kirk had turned on Netanyahu, if not Israel, and was vigorously critical of the Trump regime’s relations with “the Jewish state.” Here is a snippet from the Blumenthal–Parampil report, which ScheerPost also carried. It is based on a source who was close to Kirk and well-connected in the White House:

In the weeks leading up to his Sept. 10 assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a “bully,” the source said. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personnel decisions, and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson to keep the White House firmly under its thumb.

Those who had so recently benefacted Kirk turned against him as he turned against them when he finally grew disgusted by their undue influence. He thereafter faced incessant pressure — such that he came to fear for his life — from Israel’s most powerful American allies, many of whom had donated millions of dollars to Turning Point USA. In a separate piece published Sept. 15, Blumenthal reports on an early August meeting Ackman arranged with Kirk and various American Zionists in the Hamptons, the fashionable east end of Long Island. Kirk was so viciously attacked for his betrayals that he came away feeling “frightened.”

So much for that day and that meal Ackman was privileged to spend with Kirk a month before he was assassinated.

The Grayzone’s reports explode the orthodox narrative of Charlie Kirk and the meaning of his murder. Apart from the close-in account of Kirk’s political turn, we have now had a look at just how directly Netanyahu has habitually imposed his will on the Trump White House. These pieces are Pulitzer-worthy for what they reveal, although Blumenthal and Parampil will never see a Pulitzer, as mainstream media, busily defending the parallel universe they assist in constructing, continue resolutely to ignore their work.

Read the Whole Article

The post To Whom Goes the Good? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Barack Obama is such a soulless fraud. He’s spent the last week trying to downplay the significance of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. First, he pretended that the motive behind Charlie’s murder was impossible to ascertain. Then he blamed President Trump for welcoming “extremism” into the White House. Finally, he insinuated that Charlie was a racist and at least partially responsible for his own death. As always, America’s foremost “divider in chief” excels at rubbing salt in gaping wounds.

The Soros network of NGOs must have recently sent out marching orders instructing Democrats to speak favorably of Obama’s presidency because every prominent Donkey Party politician has tried to rewrite Obama’s divisive reign as some kind of unifying era of social harmony.

I suppose they’re attempting to brainwash the fifteen-year-olds who can’t remember a thing about the ugly Obama years but who will be voting in the next presidential election. The quick and dirty version, kids, is this: When Obama left office, even the leftist propagandists at the AP acknowledged that his presidency had greatly divided the country.

Obama could have been a remarkable figure in American history. When he entered office, he enjoyed phenomenal approval ratings because Republicans who had voted for John McCain recognized the real possibility that the worst chapters in American race relations might finally be closed for good. For several decades, in fact, black and white Americans had been getting along better than ever.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s exhortation that we view people by the “content of their character” and not by the “color of their skin” had won hearts and minds everywhere. Forty years after MLK Jr.’s assassination, Obama became president. His campaign promised “hope and change.” Americans of all political backgrounds wanted to believe that the country’s best years lay just ahead. Even Republicans who voted against Obama in 2008 recognized the remarkable opportunity his presidency provided to bring all Americans together.

Unfortunately for America, Obama and his “wingman” attorney general, Eric Holder, had no intention of uniting Americans. They had been incubated in the politics of hate and inculcated with Marxism’s prime directive to divide people and turn them against each other for partisan political gain. Once in office, Obama and Holder transformed every political debate into a new excuse for cynically accusing ideological opponents of racism. During the Obama presidency, the “race card” was the unofficial cover sheet for every administration policy.

With the race-obsessed duo of Obama and Holder at the helm, Christians were smeared as “white supremacists” and “Christian nationalists.” Grassroots members of the Tea Party movement were marginalized as “racists” who wanted to take the country back to a time before black Americans could vote. And police officers were demonized as “slave catchers” dedicated to beating up and murdering black men.

What Obama and Holder did in the name of “criminal justice reform” made Americans less safe to this day. They went out of their way to paint law enforcement officers as villains and actively sought to inflame tensions in black communities whenever possible. They put targets on the backs of good cops while celebrating lifetime criminals as civil rights “heroes.” They led a devastating effort to “defund police” and criticized police officers for proactively working to prevent crime.

Cops quickly got the Obama White House memo: When you put your life on the line to protect civilians, Democrats will throw you under the bus and turn every busted suspect into a victim. The result of the Obama-Holder police reforms was a drastic rise in violent crime across the country and a spike in police officer assassinations. While all Americans have suffered from a drawn-out hangover following the Obama years, minority neighborhoods have suffered most of all, as capable cops decided to protect their lives and jobs from unfair accusations of racism.

The Obama-Holder legacy of using false charges of racism to divide the country, pass unpopular legislation, and put cops in criminals’ crosshairs did incalculable harm to America. So when Barack Obama takes a break from retirement to take credit for the imaginary “unity” during his presidency while defaming Charlie Kirk as a “racist,” his outrageously obscene observations are particularly galling.

Charlie Kirk is dead because people such as Barack Obama lied about who he was. Police officers and civilians in this country are dead because people such as Barack Obama lie about what law enforcement officers do. Time and again, Obama and his friends portray good men and women as evil, while defending evil people as good. Then they interview each other, pat themselves on the back, and congratulate each other for being morally superior to all the Americans they’ve managed to kill.

Right now, Obama is whining about Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from his late-night propaganda show that delivers hate for laughs. Kimmel’s in timeout because the jackass couldn’t resist the impulse to lie about Charlie Kirk even after his murder. Blaming a MAGA gunman instead of a leftwing zealot for Charlie’s assassination, Kimmel spoke of this American tragedy as if it were as meaningless as one of his unfunny jokes. In this regard, Kimmel’s flippant disregard for the value of Charlie’s life mirrors Obama’s own disregard for the country he worked so hard to divide. That’s no surprise. America-haters never think of anyone but themselves.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Soulless Fraud appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s open season on the political left, and I feel fine. You may have noticed a dramatic tonal shift among conservatives in the past week that is far less accommodating, and if you are a weakling then you might even find that shift frightening. It was sparked not just by the cold blooded political assassination of an innocent man (Charlie Kirk), but by the laughter and jubilee of millions of leftists after the fact. This event has FINALLY inspired us to get angry – Better late than never.

In recent articles expounding on what the death of Charlie Kirk means for the political landscape I’ve noted that conservatives and moderates have been playing a game of politics while leftists have been engaging in guerrilla warfare. We’ve been trying to fight an insurgency with our debate skills, and this strategy is resulting in diminishing returns. This is a war, not a disagreement between countrymen.

I think we all would like to believe that this country can be saved by the power of logic and reason alone, but a rudimentary understanding of history tells me that this is not going to happen. The past century is hobbled by communist sabotage; the malicious targeting of the west and of free markets is a constant theme that needs to be addressed. It is an onslaught that cannot be repelled with words and ideas.

The “Anti-fascists” of the 20th Century were actually a militant network funded by the Soviet Union that was designed to sabotage Europe and the US. Their goal was to force the populace to accept communist rule by any means necessary.  Antifa would act like fascists while falsely labeling their enemies fascist.

Leftists threatened companies with boycotts and lies, accusing businesses of “racism and misogyny” if they didn’t comply. Conservatives simply showed employers public messages and videos posted freely by their employees. We are not the same.

Jimmy Kimmel, for example, lost his show because he lied about Tyler Robinson being MAGA (Tyler Robinson is a verified leftist, there is no longer any debate about this). This lie was being spread by a number of Democrats and activists in order to deflect blame, but Kimmel had the biggest platform and so he received the brunt of the punishment. And yes, this is entirely fair.

No one has a First Amendment right to a late night comedy show. Accusations that the FCC and Trump got Kimmel fired are false. The FCC warned ABC about the disinformation, they did not force ABC to remove Kimmel. Every firing of a leftist has been a decision made by a private company to break ties with people who are reprehensible in their character. This is not a violation of their rights.

And let’s not forget how the leftists cheered for the censorship on conservatives. They basked in it. Jimmy Kimmel laughed and applauded when Tucker Carlson was fired for telling the truth about J6. He called for the unvaccinated to be denied medical treatment for unrelated conditions; he joked about their possible deaths.

The Biden Administrations has been exposed for using its power to pressure social media companies to silence and deplatform thousands upon thousands of conservatives for telling the truth about covid, the vaccines, January 6th, the Hunter Biden laptop story, etc. That was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, yet, not a single Democrat that engaged in this fascism was prosecuted.

We are only witnessing the beginning of the reckoning that progressive militants are going to face in the coming years. No more diplomacy. No more debate. No more chances. They were given every opportunity to see the error of their ways and repent, but their thirst for chaos and destruction knows no bounds. They will continue to double down as they always have, until they catch the beatings they deserve.

This is a war, a war that they started. For now the violence is only coming from one side, but that’s not going to last much longer. There can be no coexistence with the woke left. There can be no reconciliation. There can be no mercy. They need to go. The globalists, the NGOs, the activists, all of them.

They can abandon their insane ideology and move on with their lives, or, they can be exorcised. Out of the country, out of politics, or out of existence, to ensure that they never come near power again. It’s their choice how this ends.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post No Mercy: Woke Leftists Are the Problem and They Need To Go appeared first on LewRockwell.

To Avoid risking lives of Israeli soldiers, Netanyahu is deploying large numbers of remote controlled vehicles to spread death and destruction throughout Gaza City.

Se this and this.

Israel’s ability to exterminate the Palestinians is due entirely to American money, American weapons, and American diplomatic and military protection, all of which is paid for by annual grants to Israel of billions of dollars in American money. It is with our own money that Israel buys our government and media to act in Israel’s interest.  

Palestinian mothers and children waiting in line for a scrap of food and a mouthful of water are shot in the head by brave “defenders of Israel against Palestinian terrorists.” For 715 days the Israeli-obedient  American government and  population has looked the other way.  President Trump, the US Secretary of State, the US Secretary of War, the Republican House and Senate, the Christian Evangelicals, have all bowed down to their Israeli God:  Netanyahu.  America’s elite universities expel students who protest the genocide, and the Trump regime deports them if they are from abroad. There will be no criticism of Israel’s genocide of Palestine.

Americans have been complicit in the death and destruction of Palestine for 78 years.  These maps show the Israeli-American dismemberment of Palestine between 1947 and today. Palestine is the green area.

As Israeli “settlers” cleansed Palestine village by village, olive grove by olive grove, Israel’s shills preached a “two state” solution.  Recently, the “two state” guise for Israel’s gradual extinction of Palestine was again proclaimed  despite the obvious fact that there is no land left for a Palestinian state.

America’s participation in, and enabling of, Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity Raises the Question whether America is a Sovereign Country or an Israeli Puppet State.

The same could be said about Russia because of Putin’s subservience to Israel.  Putin even handed over to Israel Syria in whose defense Russian military personnel were killed.

In Europe you can be imprisoned if you dare to speak unacceptable words against Israel.  You can’t even wave a Palestinian flag, much less produce a scholarly study proving that the Holocaust is a hoax that serves Zionist Jews and Israel’s aggression against the Arab Middle East, and milks Germany, Switzerland, and America of money.

All the bullshit about the US and Russia being superpowers is a hoax.  It is Israel that is the only Superpower.

The protestant Christian denominations are a joke.  It was years ago that I hosted in my home a delegate from an Israeli organization that was trying to bring pressure on the Israeli government to prevent the murderous “settlers” from driving Palestinians out of their villages in the West Bank, uprooting the olive trees that were their livelihood, and building apartment houses to house Jewish “settlers.”  The Israeli delegates came to America to make the case for disinvestment at the annual convention of the Presbyterian  Church.  The “Christian” Presbyterians were either too afraid of Israel to take a stand or too convinced of Israel’s righteousness.  I remember how disappointed and depressed the Israeli delegates were about the absence of a moral conscience among Presbyterian Christians.

I will speak the truth while it is still possible.  Every decent person in the world  looks at America as an evil country that has destroyed six countries for Greater Israel under the totally transparent guise of “the war against terror,” and they are waiting for Netanyahu’s puppet Trump to destroy Iran.

What’s your bet that Trump and his Zionist Regime will oblige Netanyahu?

What’s your bet that Putin is so afraid of  offending Israel that he will permit Iran’s destruction, followed by jihadists entering the Russian Federation?

The only thing that the Christian Zionists are right about is that end times are upon us.

American conservatives are the hand maidens of Israel, and the American progressive-liberal-left Democrats hate white Americans, all of whom they declare to be racists.  Decent, moral, law-abiding Americans simply have no one to represent them.  If a leader appears, like Charlie Kirk, he is quickly killed.

The fact of the matter is that American morality is a corpse.  And there is no prince with a magic kiss to resurrect  American morality.

Trump administration proposes selling $6 billion in weapons to Israel

The Trump administration has told Congress it plans to sell nearly $6 billion in weapons to Israel. It includes one $3.8 billion sale for 30 AH-64 Apache helicopters, nearly doubling Israel’s current stocks, and a second $1.9 billion sale for 3,200 infantry assault vehicles for Israeli army.

Palestine is destroyed.  So what is the purpose of this vast amount of American weapons that Trump is sending to Israel?

Is this a buildup of supplies for the Trump-Netanyahu invasion of Iran? 

The post Americans Are Accessories to the Crime of Genocide appeared first on LewRockwell.

Before I begin the body of this column, let me inform readers that this column is written each Tuesday before the Thursday publish date. This means my column last week was written before Charlie Kirk’s assassination. However, even if I had written the article on Wednesday or Thursday, I would not have devoted the column to Charlie’s murder, as I would not have had time to allow narratives, on-scene videos, eyewitness testimonies and evidentiary material to surface.

By last Sunday, I had enough information to speak to the matter. Therefore, last Sunday, September 14, I devoted my Sunday message to the subject. The title of the address is Observations, Questions And Consequences Regarding The Assassination Of Charlie Kirk.

As you watch the address, here is the video I was referring to when I suggested that Charlie could have been shot from “ground level.”

Now, to the subject at hand.

Republicans in Congress are working in determined fashion to circle the wagons around the Epstein files. As with the rest of Trump’s promises, the promise of transparency is also in the trash can. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are working like madmen to keep congressional Republicans in line to block any efforts to release the files.

The venerable Thomas Massie (R-KY) is mounting a charge to obtain enough Republican votes in the House to pass the amendment releasing the files, the threats and intimidation of Johnson and Trump notwithstanding.

Massie has been the greatest congressman since Ron Paul left office. And not surprisingly, he is Trump’s number one target for defeat in his reelection next year. Trump is using his influence among Kentucky Republicans to help oust the courageous congressman. In addition, Trump has called in reinforcements from his Jewish billionaire buddies to toss in millions of dollars to defeat Massie, one of whom is named in Epstein’s files. What a coincidence!

What everyone now knows is that Charlie Kirk was in the process of shifting his position on Israel and was suggesting that Israel is blackmailing members of Congress and possibly President Trump and was demanding that the Epstein files be released—in their entirety. He was also suggesting that Israeli forces stood down on October 7 and facilitated the Hamas attack, which gave Netanyahu the excuse he needed to ethnically cleanse and commit open genocide of the Gazan people.

On the heels of his assassination, and with the revelation that Kirk was publicly calling for the release of the Epstein files (Kirk also expressed fears that Israel would assassinate him), Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) surprisingly introduced an amendment to release the files.

In recent weeks and months, congressional efforts to force disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein files have largely concentrated in the House, where there is a bipartisan discharge petition seeking signatures. But as it turns out, the upper chamber can tackle the controversy, too, despite the Republican majority. NBC News reported:

The Republican-led Senate narrowly voted Wednesday to defeat an amendment introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to compel the Justice Department to release all of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The vote was 51-49 in favor of tabling the amendment. Two Republicans — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri — joined all 47 Democrats in voting against tabling the amendment.

The report goes on:

For much of the year, GOP senators have been content to avoid the Epstein scandal, which made it all the more notable when Schumer surprised his colleagues. Taking advantage of senators’ work on a sweeping defense policy package, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (or NDAA), the New York Democrat teed up a procedural vote on an amendment to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to make public any available documents that the Justice Department possesses related to Epstein and his associates.

Not surprisingly, the effort fell short, but the fact that two Senate Republicans voted with Democrats on this was a timely reminder about the divisions within the GOP over an issue that Donald Trump can’t make go away.

What’s more, the minority leader is hardly the only Democrat working on the Epstein controversy. The New York Times reported:

Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who has led an investigation into some of Jeffrey Epstein’s financial dealings, introduced a bill to compel the Treasury Department to turn over copies of all suspicious activity reports filed by banks for thousands of transactions by Epstein and dozens of his associates or business partners. Wyden, the Senate Finance Committee’s ranking member, previously sent letters to Treasury officials demanding copies of the reports but was rebuffed.

Among the banks whose reports Wyden is trying to obtain is JPMorgan Chase, which served as Epstein’s primary banker for many years and has been accused of helping to enable Epstein’s activities. (The bank has denied any wrongdoing.)

As Politico reported, the bipartisan duo spearheading the effort — Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California — now need only one more House member’s signature to clinch 218 signatures, which would trigger a process House GOP leaders would be powerless to stop.

(Source)

Note: If you have a Republican U.S. senator who is not named Rand Paul or Josh Hawley, your senator voted to keep the Epstein files secret. I would hope you would feel feverishly motivated to contact your senators.

And right on cue, Donald Trump is using Kirk’s murder as an excuse to continue his totalitarian tactics against people he doesn’t like.

Angered in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Trump administration officials say they’re planning to use “every resource” available across the federal government to target left-leaning organizations they contend are promoting political violence.

Vice President JD Vance and Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, on Sept. 15 discussed plans to “go after” liberal non-government organizations, or NGOs, they said support “doxxing” campaigns against conservatives, help orchestrate riots, publicize the addresses of political opponents and promote messages intended to create violence.

“We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks,” Miller said as he joined Vance on a livestream as the vice president hosted “The Charlie Kirk Show” to pay tribute to the late conservative activist.

(Source)

In my message last Sunday, I predicted this very outcome. I opined:

Trump has always had dictatorial tendencies. His attack on the freedom of speech to criticize Israel is a prime example. With the murder of Charlie Kirk, Trump is free to “punish” the left, who are being blamed for Kirk’s death.

People on the Right are “declaring war” on the Left for its promotion of “political violence.” The whole Left-Right paradigm is fashionable once again.

I don’t remember these Trump toadies declaring war against “political violence” when the liberal Democrats Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed back in June of this year.

Kirk’s tragic death is merely an excuse to open the floodgates of an oppressive government that targets political ideology.

And because people on the Left are now the targets, the MAGA toadies and evangelical delusionals (my new word for Christian Zionists) are cheering it on. But what happens when a new sheriff rides into the White House and the targets are pro-life activists, pro-Second Amendment advocates and other conservatives?

Dividing America into Left and Right again is just what Netanyahu wants. If we are consumed with fighting each other as Americans, we won’t see the slaughter and genocide of the Gazan people—or the Epstein files.

The kind of violent end to the life of Charlie Kirk this week is the kind of violent end that over 100 people—including little children and babies—are succumbing to EVERY DAY in Palestine at the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump and their cabal of Zionist zealots.

I continued:

No American should ever be killed in a public square speaking what he believes is right. I don’t care if that person is a person that I disagree with 100% top to bottom, if it’s the most leftist liberal you can imagine, a person that disagrees with me about everything and I with him.

I honor and respect the right of that American citizen to stand up in a public square and speak what he believes is truth in peace. And thereby, I have the same right. If one person does not have the right to stand and speak in the public square in peace, then none of us have the right to stand and speak in the public square in peace.

If Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to honor the memory of Charlie Kirk, they would immediately release the entirety of the Epstein files without redaction and press the Israeli government for its internal records regarding its complicity with the Hamas attack on October 7, including the Hannibal Directive that ordered IDF troops to fire on Israeli citizens.

But what are they doing? Completely ignoring Israel’s blackmail operation and its collusion with Hamas on October 7—and the very possible collusion it had with Charlie Kirk’s assassination. And instead, are using Kirk’s death as an excuse to further trash the U.S. Constitution and use the power of the federal government to foment more hatred and division among the American people and “go after” American citizens whose political views they don’t like.

MAGA, wake up! You are being played.

Are you really going to sit back and allow the Republicans in Washington, D.C. (how many of them are being blackmailed by Israel? Don’t you want to know?) to continue covering for the murderous blackmailer Benjamin Netanyahu and the violent, genocidal Zionist government? Are you really willing to put the interests of a corrupt foreign government above the interests of your own country? Do you really believe that is what the Bible (and our Constitution) teaches you to do?

Charlie Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization, America’s largest conservative youth association, according to a longtime friend of the slain commentator speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told The Grayzone that the late pro-Trump influencer believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel’s overwhelming influence in Washington and demanded more space to criticize it.

In the weeks leading up to his September 10 assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a “bully,” the source said. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personnel decisions, and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson to keep the White House firmly under its thumb.

According to Kirk’s friend, who also enjoyed access to President Donald Trump and his inner circle, Kirk strongly warned Trump last June against bombing Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Charlie was the only person who did that,” they said, recalling how Trump “barked at him” in response and angrily shut down the conversation. The source believes the incident confirmed in Kirk’s mind that the president of the United States had fallen under the control of a malign foreign power, and was leading his own country into a series of disastrous conflicts.

By the following month, Kirk had become the target of a sustained private campaign of intimidation and free-floating fury by wealthy and powerful allies of Netanyahu – figures he publicly referred to as Jewish “leaders” and “stakeholders.”

(Source)

It is obvious to everyone that Charlie Kirk was beginning to see the truth about the evil Israeli state. And he was willing to risk his life to speak out about what he was seeing.

Does not his death inspire you to open your eyes to the truth as well? And if it doesn’t, what kind of person are you?

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post GOP Circling the Wagons Around Epstein Files appeared first on LewRockwell.

Peter recently joined Kitco’s Jeremy Szafron to discuss why Fed rate cuts are unlikely to deliver hoped-for relief and may instead accelerate the dollar’s decline. He ties the problem to ballooning deficits, a fragile banking system, and the history of the Federal Reserve, and he closes by pointing out why silver remains undervalued relative to gold.

He warns that rate cuts intended to prop up the economy will have the opposite effect on long-term yields and the dollar:

And so now they’re going to cut rates because of the weakness in the labor market and the economy, but the rate cuts are not going to deliver the expected relief. I believe that they will backfire in that they will cause long-term rates to rise, which is really what they want to reduce. And that will ultimately usher in a return to quantitative easing. And that’s the nail in the dollar’s coffin. And I think that’s why you’re seeing, you know, the dollar is weakening today.

Peter connects that dollar weakness to the relentless growth of U.S. deficits and the difficulty of finding willing buyers for government debt:

So not only does the U.S. have to finance $3 trillion, $4 trillion of annual deficit spending, but we have to find buyers for, you know, $10 trillion a year of maturing debt or something like that. So it’s enormous what we have to finance and the world just does not want to do it. And they’re diversifying out of dollars. And of course, we keep flooding the world with dollars because even though we have these tariffs, we still have trillion dollar a year trade deficits. And so what is the world going to do with all these dollars that it earns selling us all this stuff?

He reminds listeners that the Fed was established as a private banking institution and that its independence reflects that origin:

The original Federal Reserve was a private banking syndicate. You know, that’s why it’s independent because it was never part of the federal government. Because the federal government is not allowed to do what the Fed does. The federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to print money. Only private banks can issue paper currency.

Turning to the banking sector, Peter argues that the largest banks remain fragile and that off-market accounting masks impairment in long-duration assets:

All of the too big to fail banks that we should have allowed to fail are now much bigger than they were. And the balance sheets of a lot of these banks are, I think, in a lot of trouble because they own a lot of long-term low-yielding debt, whether it’s treasury debt, mortgage-backed securities, mortgages, commercial loans, whatever it is. They’ve got all this debt that they don’t mark to market. You know, the accounting says that as long as you claim that you’re going to hold your securities to market, you don’t have to take a haircut. You can pretend that your capital isn’t impaired.

He cautions that a sharp dollar decline could prompt extreme policy responses, including foreign-exchange controls, if citizens rush to get rid of dollars:

Well, I think eventually there may be some foreign exchange controls when the dollar really is going into freefall, which I think is going to happen at some point. And I think that the US government may try to stop the bleeding. And that’s going to be when US citizens try to get rid of their dollars. So as you know, the world is getting rid of their dollars. You know, I was watching on television this morning and Scott Beset was on and he said US Treasury bonds are the best performing sovereign debt year to date.

Finally, he points out a practical, market signal: silver remains cheap when priced in gold, and that relative cheapness argues for considering physical precious metals as protection against monetary debasement:

There isn’t a lot of silver out there relative to the demand that I see for it in industry. But silver is just cheap, you know, and it’s cheap relative to gold. And that’s the best barometer of whether something is cheap or not, is look at it priced in gold. And you can still get a lot of silver for an ounce of gold. And, you know, even at $50 silver and $4,000 gold, that’s still 80 to one..

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post Rate Cuts Won’t Save the Dollar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

The post Television pastor likens Germans who criticise state media defamations of Charlie Kirk to the devil appeared first on LewRockwell.

Paddy Chayefsky: Collector of Words

Paddy Chayefsky is the only person in history to have won three Oscars for solo screenwriting efforts, yet today his name goes largely unrecognized. Chayefsky’s oeuvre explores the lives of thunderously dramatic, socially alienated characters—characters who are “mad as hell,” to borrow the words immortalized in his masterpiece Network. The anger and loneliness at the heart of his screenplays were channeled from his life: his experiences as the child of Russian-Jewish immigrants, and the injuries he suffered in WWII. While many of his peers wrote invisibly, merely advancing stories from set piece to set piece, Chayefsky penned bold polemics that were the centerpieces of their films. Paddy Chayefsky: Collector of Words features an all-star lineup of writers (Aaron Sorkin, Merrill Markoe), actors (Bryan Cranston, Larry David), and directors (Mel Brooks, Judd Apatow), each revealing the mark that Chayefsky’s writing made on them. Those admirers often tear up while quoting his scripts, and their reverence makes it abundantly clear that Chayefsky’s impressive collection of words is well worth revisiting. —David Cohn

Award-Winning Screenplays

Marty (1955): Chayefsky won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for this film, which was based on his own television play.

The Hospital (1971): He also won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for this film about the chaos within a hospital.

Network (1976): His final Oscar win was for the screenplay of this satirical look at the television industry.

Other Notable Films

The Americanization of Emily (1964): A romantic comedy-drama (condemnation of war) that Chayefsky adapted from a novel.

Paint Your Wagon (1969): A musical adaptation, though Chayefsky’s contribution was primarily as an adapter of the existing work.

Altered States (1980): Chayefsky wrote the screenplay for this science fiction horror film, which was based on his own novel.

Middle of the Night (1959): A drama adapted from his stage play, which began as a television play.

The Goddess (1958): Another film based on one of his original stories and screenplays.

The Bachelor Party (1957): Based on his own story and screenplay.

The post Paddy Chayefsky: Collector of Words appeared first on LewRockwell.

You can bet the 12 purported geniuses on the FOMC, who today came up with a 25 basis point cut in the essentially phony Fed funds rate, have never looked at the graph below. It shows that for all their wild-ass money printing in recent years, the US index of manufacturing output stands at 101.39, which is nearly 5% below the level reached on the eve of the financial crisis in December 2007.

That’s right. The US manufacturing economy has been shrinking in real physical terms for the past 18 years notwithstanding the fact that during that interval the Fed has printed nearly $6 trillion in brand, spanking new money that it snatched from thin air. So something big and bad happened after the Fed went all in on money-printing in response to the stock market meltdown in the fall of 2008.

After all, during the 28 years between 1972 and 2000 the very opposite occurred. Manufacturing output in the US rose by nearly 150%, which computes to a 3.3% growth rate per annum.

Yet there is no mystery as to why manufacturing output abruptly went flatter than a board after the Financial Crisis: To wit, the mad money-printers in the Eccles Building simply inflated the bejesus out of the US economy at a time when what was urgently needed was a stern deflation of an already inflation-bloated industrial sector.

US Manufacturing Output, 1972 to 2025

Here’s the thing. The price of a Pilates studio session or dentist visit is mainly driven by supply and demand balances in local markets, but with today’s shipping and communications technology the manufacture of durable goods is subject to ferocious global competition. Indeed, when you look at the current fully loaded (for fringes and benefits) wage rates among major foreign suppliers, it is no wonder that output of US manufactured goods has flat-lined.

Average Fully Loaded Manufacturing Wages Per Hour in 2024:

• Vietnam: $3.50.
• India: $4.50.
• Mexico: $5.00.
• China:$6.00.
• S. Korea: $20.50.
• Canada: $22.00.
• Japan:$28.00.
• UK: $30.00.
• EU-27: $32.50.
• USA: $44.25

Well, for crying out loud! What’s the mystery?

The USA has priced itself out of the global manufacturing market, which is exactly why America has been running chronic and massive trade deficits that reached the staggering annual level of $1.2 trillion in 2024. Indeed, the collapse of America’s trade balance has been relentless over the last 30 years—with the deficit rising by 10X, from $10 billion to $100 billion. Per month!

And, no, POTUS, foreign trading partners did not suddenly turn into ever worsening unfair trade cheats in the last three decades. The cause of the plunging line below is domiciled on the banks of the Potomac, not in foriegn capitals.

Average U.S. Monthly Trade Deficit, 1992 to 2024

The vast gap between US manufacturing wages and that of our major trading partners has been building relentlessly since the early 1990s when Greenspan put the Fed in the monetary central planning business. Back then, the fully loaded US manufacturing wage was about $18.50 per hour, meaning that it has risen in nominal terms by 2.4X since then.

However, owing to the Fed’s relentless pro-inflation policies the CPI index has risen by 124%, meaning that in 2024 dollars the 1992 fully loaded manufacturing wage was $41.10 per hour. Accordingly, workers who manged to keep their jobs gained barely 7% over one-third of a century from all of the Fed’s pro-inflation money printing, even as the ever rising level of nominal US wages made blue collar workers a sitting duck in global markets. Again, for want of doubt see the gaping fully loaded international manufacturing wage levels in US dollars shown above.

Of course, the Fed’s fanboys on Wall Street say not to worry—productivity gains will offset the nominal wage gains. That was partially true for a few years during the technology-driven productivity boom of the 1990s, but no more. Since 2007 unit labor costs in US manufacturing have soared by +53%, which exactly coincides with the deep plunge in the US trade deficit in goods after the turn of the century.

Index of US unit labor costs in Manufacturing, 1992 to 2024

In short, what America really needed from the early 1990s onward, as the China export machine and its worldwide supply chain came to life, was zero inflation at worst and ideally a spell of price, wage and cost deflation to offset the vast ballooning of US production costs after Tricky Dick Nixon severed the dollar’s link to gold in August 1971.

Between that date and mid-1992, the general price level in the US rose by 250%, and now stands at 700% above its June 1971 level. Is there any wonder, then, that the US has priced itself out of the global manufacturing market?

Of course, the sheer monetary insanity depicted by the red line in the graph below is justified by the Fed on the grounds that inflation is good for prosperity—-at least to the extent of 2.00% annually, year in and year out.

Except there is not a shred of historic evidence or sound economic logic to justify the Fed’s sacred 2.00% target. It’s just a handy excuse for running the printing presses at rates which please the gamblers on Wall Street and the Spenders in Washington.

700% Inflation Rise Since June 1971

To return to our opening chart, industrial production is the heart of the modern economy and the main source of sustainable gains in real output and living standards. Even a half-assed assessment of the world in 1990 would have told any honest and capable monetary central planner that wringing out some of the 250% increase in the domestic cost and price level that had accumulated since Camp David was imperative if the US was to remain competitive in global markets.

Alas, the Keynesian fools who took over the nation’s central bank under Greenspan’s leadership cooked-up a closed bathtub style model of the US economy, and conferred upon themselves the Keynesian mission of keep “aggregate demand” full to the brim via low interest rates and massive injections of fiat credits into the nation’s financial markets.

That was a drastic error from the get-go, but the money-printing gospel is of such convenience to both ends of the Acela Corridor that this cardinal pro-inflation error rolls forward unquestioned by both wings of the UniParty. Accordingly, with inflation stalled at more than 3.0%, when it should be zero or negative, the Fed again today sung the Einstein Chorus. That is to say, these “insane” apparatchiks seem to believe that doing the same thing over and over again—even after 700% inflation—will finally generate a positive outcome.

It won’t.

Y/Y Change In 16% Trimmed Mean CPI, 2012 to 2025

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The post The Eccles Building Inflationistas Strike Yet Again appeared first on LewRockwell.

My friend Matt Ridley today pointed out an interesting demographic fact, and as it happens a fact that Charlie Kirk commented on just weeks before his death: the decline in birth rates seems to be concentrated primarily among progressives, while self-described conservatives have seen a much less significant decline.

We can speculate on why that should be, and obvious explanations appear to present themselves, but this is a fact.

Even so, conservatives’ birth rates still amount to a decline, and we’re going to need something more than just falling more slowly if we’re going to escape the demographic crisis we face.

Kevin Dolan runs a natal conference in Austin, Texas, every year, and it’s urgently necessary that you hear him out.

As he opened one of his conferences, he gave the examples of Japan and South Korea, which show us “what may be the best-case scenario, what it might look like if you could let the air out of the balloon slowly. What that looks like is young people chained to the desk, working ever longer hours for ever lower wages, not only unable to start a family, but increasingly unable to start a family. The countryside and smaller cities abandoned as the tax base evaporates.”

With meticulous planning, Kevin says, those countries can arrange an “orderly tragedy,” and that’s the best case. “But I think Japan and Korea are beautiful places,” he says, “with beautiful people who should go on existing.” Hence his conferences, trying to figure these questions out.

“Places like China, Brazil, Russia, Thailand and Mexico,” Kevin adds, “got old before they got rich. In coming decades, these countries will be totally unable to sustain their elderly populations, even if they could stop the flight of their most productive young people, even if they worked them and taxed them to death.

“Unless something truly dramatic happens, these countries will face humanitarian and political crises on par with the worst of the 20th century.”

What about the U.S.?

We will, says Kevin, probably “be somewhere in the middle. So far, immigration makes US fertility rates look better on paper, but not enough to prevent a de-growth economic collapse and not enough to take care of an aging population. It’s not obvious, in any case, why young immigrant families from poor countries would sign up to support a population of elderly dependents to whom they have no attachment, while their own grandmothers back home are starving.”

“The reason I’m here,” he goes on, “is that I have two girls and four boys. And like a lot of millennials raising kids, when I look around at how few of us manage to start families and how much worse it is for Gen Z, I feel like I caught the last train out. A consistent 95 percent of Americans say they want kids, but it looks like only about 60 percent of millennials will get there.”

Now why are childless people childless? It turns out that being childless is a conscious decision in only 10 percent of cases, with fertility issues accounting for another 10 percent. For the other 80 percent, Kevin explains, it’s “what demographer Stephen Shaw calls unplanned childlessness…. The infrastructure that gets ordinary people educated, employed, paired off and raising kids has just broken down.”

And this section I need you to read in its entirety:

I view this as fundamentally a conservation project. If the Bengal tiger suddenly and dramatically stopped breeding, we wouldn’t say, “Wow, I’m so glad the tigers are prioritizing their mental health!” Or, “They’re spoiled; they’re just not made of the same stuff as their tiger ancestors.” And we certainly wouldn’t say, “Good, there are too many Bengal tigers! Bengal tigers are ruining everything.”

Instead, we’d look at their environment and try to figure out what changed, what’s disrupting their ability to fulfill this most basic imperative.

And it is a basic imperative. If you’re built to do anything at all, you’re built to fall in love and have children and raise them. And there’s no more punishing verdict, there’s no situation in which a person is more psychologically vulnerable, than when they take a chance on that. You can tell a kid who’s afraid of rejection that it’s not life and death, but it is life and death.

When you ask someone to love you, to marry you, to have a child with you, you’re asking them: do you want my eyes, my nose, my hairline, the way I think, the way I walk and talk? Do you want that to go on into the future or should it go away forever? And for hundreds of millions of men and women, it feels like the whole world is telling them, nope, not you.

For men, it’s usually near the top of the funnel, just getting swiped left 10,000 times at a glance. For women, it often comes later in the form of situationships that can last for months or years and never quite come around to yes, I want you in particular. I want my kids to be like you. I think your thing should go on….

I get why so many people are angry. We’re just not built to be hurt like that over and over again, with no end in sight. And a system where that’s the fate of an ordinary person is a broken system.

Bottom line for me is I don’t want any of that for my kids. I have to think of something better. Yes, there are political and economic dimensions to this issue…. But I’m not trying to have grandkids so they can fund Medicare.

I want my kids to have kids so they can learn that Christmas morning is actually better as a parent than it was as a kid. I want my daughters to have sons and my sons to have daughters, and to care intensely about what happens to them, and watch as that transforms their whole perspective on the opposite sex.

I want them to see all the little imperfections and embarrassing things that they were insecure about as kids in this other person who’s just the best and realized that all of that was completely okay and not a big deal, and it didn’t make them unlovable.

You’re supposed to observe your life again in the third person. You’re supposed to see yourself as a little child through your father’s eyes, your mother’s eyes, maybe through God’s eyes. You’re supposed to see yourself saying and doing things your parents said and did. And you’re either supposed to understand that and forgive it, or you’re supposed to recognize that it was wrong and make it right. Maybe both.

And these are psychological loops that don’t close in any other way. Of course, life isn’t fair. Things don’t always work out. But it should be normal, it should be typical to have these experiences. Parenting is as fundamental to the human life cycle as puberty, and just as transformative.

I believe that the mainstream institutions that used to get people educated, employed, married and supporting a family are in terminal decline and have become hostile to life.

Elon Musk retweeted Kevin’s full address with the comment, “If birth rates continue to plummet, human civilization will end.”

I get that there are challenges involved with having kids — especially when you’re a dissident like you and me, and you feel like the major institutions of society (the schools, for example, but not just them) are systematically trying to undermine you and your parenting.

I recently led a parenting call for my School of Life community, and we came up with a bunch of topics that would make for good sessions in the future:

–kids and electronics/screens
–discipline
–your kids’ peers
–homeschooling and traditional school
–sleeping issues among young children
–developing a mission statement and statement of values for your family (this was a brilliant idea from one of our members)
–teaching kids about money

and other ideas as well.

We’d all benefit from exchanging ideas with other parents, but good luck doing that nowadays: half the people in any group you’d find are certifiably insane, and they’ll probably think you’re crazy.

In my community nobody has to worry about any of that. We share the same worldview, and we’re normal.

Oh, and another marriage has come out of our community: the soon-to-be bride and groom met inside the School of Life and are getting married next month.

I can sit here and wring my hands in my email newsletter about the challenges we face, or you and I together can try to do something.

I choose the second one:

https://www.ElevenFreebies.com

Never pay for a book again: TomsFreeBooks.com

The post Guess Who Isn’t Having Babies appeared first on LewRockwell.