Lew Rockwell Institute

Thanks, W.T. White.

The post So? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post From Kiev, Lindsey Graham Blows Up Trump’s Ukraine Policy appeared first on LewRockwell.

“In a world where faith and film collide, Old Hollywood gifted us with cinematic masterpieces that continue to resonate today. From sweeping epics to intimate portrayals, these must-watch faith-based movies not only entertained but also inspired generations, offering profound reflections on spirituality and morality.

“Join us as we explore the must-watch faith-based Old Hollywood movies of all time, where stories of redemption, sacrifice, and divine intervention unfold against the backdrop of classic cinema. Prepare to be captivated by the timeless narratives that shaped the genre and left an indelible mark on the heart of Hollywood.”

Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is a cinematic epic phenomenon in a class without equal. One wonders what its sequel, The Resurrection of the Christ will entail? It will start shooting in August at Rome’s Cinecittà Studios, CEO Manuela Cacciamani has announced.

Gibson told Raymond Arroyo that the movie includes the fall of the angels. Gibson later told Joe Rogan the film would conclude with the death of the last apostle.

The post 10 MUST WATCH Faith-Based Old Hollywood Movies You Might Have Missed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Middle East Eye

The post Israel kills 32 starving Palestinians in latest US aid point ‘massacre’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

AlJazeera

The post What is Project Esther, the playbook against pro-Palestine movement in US? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Stanley:

Dear Mr. Rockwell,

Your website is the only one I have run across, drawing attention to the Warren Commission having been hand-picked by, of all people, the one whose position was most directly affected by JFK’s assassination, LBJ.  To me, this seems glaring, akin to a defendant being given carte blanche over his own jury selection.  

Adding to this questionable propriety is the WC having been set up for a predetermined outcome, to convince the public Oswald acted alone, rather than for a mission, ostensibly, of genuine investigation.  

This seemingly inappropriate undertaking raises the question:  Why was Earl Warren, after adamantly declining LBJ’s offer to serve on the Commission, suddenly taken over a barrel by LBJ, tearfully, in compliance after LBJ’s mention of Hoover having told him about a “little incident in Mexico City”?  We see Dick Russell likewise having taken part, though he swore at LBJ for having strong-armed Warren as well as himself to do so.  

I question whether LBJ’s expressed fear of a WW III, a decades-long fear for everyone, would suddenly flick the switch in Warren’s and Russell’s decision here.  Granted this danger was real, we know that only the President can push the red button, regardless how loud the national outcry may be.  And the last few Presidents around that time did not seem overcome by such fear, especially JFK with his repeated attempts to take out Castro.  

With my limited study, I have the impression that LBJ was determined to suppress information on others involved, however futile that may have been when Castro was already well-aware of such parties.  Plus, it looks as though LBJ was able to force Warren, for reasons beyond the fear of war, to participate in an activity of profound consequences, contrary to his wishes, thus placing a Chief Justice in the iron grip of a POTUS.  

The post LBJ, Warren Commission appeared first on LewRockwell.

One of the most insidious ideologies of our time is Marxism. Its proponents use Marxism to undermine our political and social institutions. They dismiss ordinary morality as a tool to cover up exploitation and oppression. They claim that capitalism exploits workers and that it should be replaced by socialism, even though socialist and communist regimes have killed millions of people. We must arm ourselves against this devil’s brew. For that reason, it’s essential that we study what the two greatest social thinkers and defenders of freedom, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, have said about it. That way we will be prepared to battle against the forces of evil.

Marx said that capitalism pushes down workers’ wages until they barely provide enough money to live on. In fact, as Mises points out, capitalism results in a vast improvement of the workers’ standard of living. Mises says: “What really destroyed Marx was his idea of the progressive impoverishment of the workers. Marx didn’t see that the most important characteristic of capitalism was large-scale production for the needs of the masses; the main objective of capitalists is to produce for the broad masses. Nor did Marx see that under capitalism the customer is always right. In his capacity as a wage earner, the worker cannot determine what is to be made. But in his capacity as a customer, he is really the boss and tells his boss, the entrepreneur, what to do. His boss must obey the orders of the workers as they are members of the buying public. Mrs. Webb, like other socialists, was the daughter of a well-to-do businessman. Like other socialists, she thought her father was an autocrat who gave orders to everybody. She didn’t see that he was subject to the sovereignty of the orders of the customers on the market. The ‘great’ Mrs. Webb [Beatrice Potter] was no smarter than the dumbest messenger boy who sees only that his boss gives orders.” [Mrs. Webb was a leading member of the Fabian Society. She and her husband wrote a defense of Stalinism called Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.]

How do Marxists cope with the fact that Marx’s claim that capitalism drives down wages to bare subsistence is false? As Murray Rothbard points out, they do so by changing what Marx claimed. He was really doing something else besides saying what has turned out to be false. They keep doing this when their new interpretation of what Marx was saying also turns out to be false: “Thus, when Marxian predictions fail, even though they are allegedly derived from scientific laws of history,  Marxists go to great lengths to change the terms of the original prediction. A notorious example is Marx’s law of the impoverishment of the working class under capitalism. When it became all too clear that the standard of living of the workers under industrial capitalism was rising instead of falling Marxists fell back on the view that what Marx ‘really’ meant by impoverishment was not immiseration but relative deprivation. One of the problems with this fallback defense is that impoverishment is supposed to be the motor of the proletarian revolution, and it is difficult to envision the workers resorting to bloody revolution because they only enjoy one yacht apiece while capitalists enjoy five or six. Another notorious example was the response of many Marxists to Bohm-Bawerk’s conclusive demonstration that that labor theory of value could not account for the pricing of goods under capitalism. Again, the fallback response was that what Marx “really” meant was not to explain market pricing at all, but merely to assert that labor hours embed some sort of mystically inherent ‘values’ into goods that are, however, irrelevant to the workings of the capitalist market. If this were true, then it i! difficult to see why Marx labored for a great part of his life in an unsuccessful attempt to complete Capital and to solve the value-price problem.”

Marxist socialists want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with central planning. But Mises proved in an article in 1920 that it is impossible for socialism to work. In order to know what to produce, the planners would have to be able to calculate with money prices. Without money prices, they couldn’t tell which of their investments were successful. But money prices exist only under capitalism. Without them, a socialist economy would inevitably collapse into chaos. Mises gives a brief summary of his argument here: “Without economic calculation there can be no economy. Hence, in a socialist state wherein the pursuit of economic calculation is impossible, there can be—in our sense of the term—no economy whatsoever. In trivial and secondary matters rational conduct might still be possible, but in general it would be impossible to speak of rational production anymore. There would be no means of determining what was rational, and hence it is obvious that production could never be directed by economic considerations. What this means is clear enough, apart from its effects on the supply of commodities. Rational conduct would be divorced from the very ground which is its proper domain. Would there, in fact, be any such thing as rational conduct at all, or, indeed, such a thing as rationality and logic in thought itself? Historically, human rationality is a development of economic life. Could it then obtain when divorced therefrom?”

In spite of this, Marxists try to undermine our institutions. Maybe it would be better to say because of this. They love destruction and want to bring down our world in ruins. Murray Rothbard argued that this will to destruction is an expression of a messianic religion that teaches the present world must be destroyed in a violent revolution before a communist millennium can be established: “The key to the intricate and massive system of thought created by Karl Marx is at bottom a simple one: Karl Marx was a communist. A seemingly trite and banal statement set alongside Marxism’s myriad of jargon-ridden concepts in philosophy, economics, and culture, yet Marx’s devotion to communism was his crucial focus, far more central than the class struggle, the dialectic, the theory of surplus value, and all the rest. Communism was the great goal, the vision, the desideratum, the ultimate end that would make the sufferings of mankind throughout history worthwhile. History is the history of suffering, of class struggle, of the exploitation of man by man. In the same way as the return of the Messiah, in Christian theology, will put an end to history and establish a new heaven and a new earth, so the establishment of communism would put an end to human history. And just as for post-millennial Christians, man, led by God’s prophets and saints, will establish a Kingdom of God on Earth (for pre-millennials, Jesus will have many human assistants in setting up such a kingdom), so, for Marx and other schools of communists, mankind, led by a vanguard of secular saints, will establish a secularized Kingdom of Heaven on earth. In messianic religious movements, the millennium is invariably established by a mighty, violent upheaval, an Armageddon, a great apocalyptic war between good and evil. After this titanic conflict, a millennium, a new age, of peace and harmony, of the reign of justice, will be installed upon the earth. Marx emphatically rejected those utopian socialists who sought to arrive at communism through a gradual and evolutionary process, through a steady advancement of the good. Instead, Marx harked back to the apocalyptics, the post-millennia coercive German and Dutch Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, to the millennia1 sects during the English Civil War, and to the various groups of pre-millennial Christians who foresaw a bloody Armageddon at the last days, before the millennium could be established. Indeed, since the apoca- lyptic post-mils refused to wait for a gradual goodness and sainthood to permeate mankind, they joined the pre-mils in believing that only a violent apocalyptic final struggle between good and evil, between saints and sinners, could usher in the millennium. Violent, worldwide revolution, in Marx’s version, to be made by the oppressed proletariat, would be the inevitable instrument for the advent of his millennium, communism. In fact, Marx, like the pre-mils (or ‘millenarians’), went further to hold that the reign of evil on earth would reach a peak just before the apocalypse (‘the darkness before the dawn’).

Let’s do everything we can to educate people so that they fully understand how dangerous and Satanic Marxism really is!

The post Mises and Rothbard on Marx appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Impressed at Vicksburg appeared first on LewRockwell.

Every civilization is built upon a myth. Not a fiction, but a frame—a sacred narrative that defines the borders of good and evil, maps the structure of the world, and carves meaning into the chaos of time. For the modern West, that myth is the Second World War.

We do not merely study that war; we worship it. It is the holy text of the present order, the last moral certainty in an otherwise relativistic age. The world we inhabit was birthed in its ashes, and our institutions, both supranational and domestic, trace their legitimacy to its outcome. Our moral reflexes, our political taboos, and our cultural self-image each flow from the narrative established in the aftermath of that conflict. It is the one story every schoolchild knows by heart, the one event in which history is always taught with the verdict already rendered, where objectivity is not merely discouraged but actively punished. Above all, it is a moral fable: a tale of Good overcoming Evil, of light prevailing over darkness, of universal brotherhood triumphing over the tribal instincts of blood and soil.

But it is not history; it is myth in the most destructive sense of the word, not a noble fiction that elevates a people, but a sacred distortion that imprisons them. It has become, in effect, a new religion. And like all true religions, it governs not only belief, but morality, identity, and destiny.

Nietzsche wrote that God is dead, not as provocation but as diagnosis. He did not mean that the divine had vanished, but that the metaphysical architecture which once upheld Western life, the shared horizon of meaning and the sacred order of value, had collapsed. What followed was not freedom but vacancy. The Second World War did not reverse this decline; it cemented it. In its aftermath, modern Western man, cut off from tradition and denied transcendence, became vulnerable to new idols. As Heidegger warned, the loss of Being would drive man toward technics, abstraction, and collective illusions, giving rise to an age in which truth is displaced by narrative and destiny is reduced to management.

It was in this vacuum that the myth of the Good War arose, not merely as historical interpretation but as surrogate transcendence. It began as myth but did not remain myth. It became the sacred event of a post-Christian West, the Passion narrative of a secular faith. Sin was redefined as ancestral pride, salvation as submission, and the highest moral ideal became the erasure of distinction, since distinction is the foundation of identity, and identity the recognition of difference. The West unmoored itself from its gods and raised a new religion in their place.

Within this creed, the Second World War is remembered not as a geopolitical conflict, but as a holy war. According to the myth, the war was fought to liberate the world from tyranny, racism, and barbarism. It was a righteous crusade to stop a madman bent on planetary conquest, racial extermination, and totalitarian rule. In this telling, the Allies become selfless guardians of peace and justice, defenders of the weak, liberators of the oppressed, and champions of universal dignity.

What is left untold, what is buried or ignored, is the record of Soviet mass murder, the incineration of entire cities by firebombing, and the systematic rape of millions of women by victorious armies. These details are either omitted or minimized because the moral arc must remain unbroken, and the myth demands that the victors be pure, untarnished, beyond reproach. The enemy, in contrast, must be absolute—not merely defeated, but demonized, rendered metaphysically evil, so that the cause against him may be remembered as absolutely good.

And thus a devil was fashioned—a single man transfigured into a supernatural emblem of madness, hatred, and genocide. He is no longer treated as a historical figure but as a totem of eternal sin, a symbol summoned to silence dissent and to terrify those who stray from orthodoxy. To question immigration policy, to express loyalty to one’s race, to observe demographic change with unease is enough to invite his ghost. The Nazi, whether real or imagined, is now the eternal enemy of the modern order—not a threat to nations, but to the abstract idea of equality upon which the postwar West has staked its soul.

Here emerges the second foundational myth, inseparable from the first: the myth that all human beings are equal, not only in dignity before the law or under God, but in cognitive capacity, temperament, moral instinct, and creative potential. It insists that race, sex, culture, and nation are illusions or social constructs, that history and biology are hateful inventions, and that all observable disparities must be explained not by difference, but by oppression. This myth is not offered as aspiration or principle, but as absolute truth, one that demands unwavering faith even in the face of empirical evidence, daily experience, and common sense. To notice difference is to commit a kind of blasphemy; to act upon it is treated as a moral crime.

The two myths reinforce each other in a mutually sustaining loop. The myth of the Good War provides the moral alibi for the myth of equality, while the myth of equality breathes contemporary meaning into the memory of the war. We are told that millions died to prove a single moral proposition: that there are no enduring distinctions among peoples, that all are interchangeable, and that pride, borders, and identity are preludes to catastrophe. Because this double myth is the foundation of the current regime, it cannot be questioned. If the war was not about the triumph of universal values, if the enemy was not uniquely evil, then the entire postwar order is exposed as illegitimate—a revelation that those in power cannot afford to permit.

But the truth is simpler and far more tragic. The war was not a global moral awakening, but a clash of empires, a continuation of unresolved struggles from the century prior, and the culmination of a European Civil War, a fratricidal brother-war waged with unprecedented cruelty by every side involved. Its causes lay in diplomatic treachery, ideological extremism, and territorial ambition. Its consequences were not peace and liberty, but division, famine, occupation, and the subjugation of half of Europe, the seedbed of Western man, behind the barbed wire of a new tyranny. The war did not inaugurate a new era of freedom. It marked the collapse of Western self-confidence, the twilight of its spiritual vitality, and the beginning of its long moral disintegration.

In the decades that followed, the peoples of Europe and their descendants abroad were taught not to cherish their heritage, but to apologize for it. Every expression of loyalty to tradition, to ancestry, to historical continuity, has been recast as dangerous. Every appeal to order, hierarchy, or cultural memory is now met with the same panicked refrain: “This is how it starts.” You are told you are Hitler. You are dangerous. You must be silenced. The myth, in other words, does not protect; it punishes. It does not inspire; it cripples. It tells European man that he may exist only as a penitent, that his past is a burden, and that his future must consist of demographic erasure, racial replacement, and the deafening silence of total submission.

In this moral framework, pride is forbidden. Not aggression, not supremacy, but pride itself, the simple and natural feeling of belonging to something ancient, beautiful, and one’s own. That alone is now impermissible for the White man. All other peoples are allowed such sentiment; indeed, they are encouraged to cultivate it. But he is told to disown himself, to forget his dead, and to welcome his own disappearance as a moral duty.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Myth That Made the Modern World appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Glenn Greenwald: The Truth About Epstein, Jake Tapper’s Humiliation, & Insane New Push to Nuke Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

There were quite a lot of what Donald Trump might describe as “bad things” taking place in Washington over the past week, to include the worsening of relations with China shortly after what appeared to be an agreement had been reached over tariffs; the arrival at an apparent impasse in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program; and friction with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over possible initiatives relating to the genocide that is continuing in Gaza.

The pointless break with China, tweeted by Trump as follows: “The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!” will have potentially major consequences for the US economy. However, perhaps the most lethal cross-talking of the past week relates to Russia and Ukraine, where the demands by President Donald Trump to initiate a ceasefire have been met by a Russian reiteration of its redline national security imperatives to include no Ukrainian entry into NATO, acceptance that Crimea is part of Russia, and either autonomy or incorporation into Russia of the Russian ethnic oblasts in the eastern part of Ukraine.

This has led to a considerable cooling in the bilateral relationship between Moscow and Washington and it also suggests that Trump’s apparent desire to disengage from Ukraine has now taken on a Neoconnish tone with the United States presuming that it must be the accepted hegemon which by rights should be calling the shots on what might come next. And Trump is not above issuing ill-advised new personal threats against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom he described as “absolutely crazy,” as well as a warning that even stronger Treasury Department sanctions targeting Russia are being considered. He angrily tweeted “What Vladimir Putin does not realize is that, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He’s playing with fire!” Trump’s son Donald Jr also threw into the mix a bit of Memorial Day context that well illustrates the vacuousness of the foreign policy thinking in the White House. Trump Jr, who apparently is being considered by some a possible candidate to succeed his father, tweeted on Trump Sr’s inane observation with his own take on the situation: “As we drove past the rows of white grave markers [at Arlington Cemetery], in the gravity of the moment…I also thought of…all the sacrifices we’d have to make—giving up a huge chunk of our business and all international deals.”

I don’t recall that either Trump ever put himself in harm’s way by serving in the US military. So much for sacrifices. Unfortunately, the clueless President Trump is also being backed up by some Europeans who, for reasons that are largely incomprehensible, seem to want to go to war with Russia. Germany has recently decided share their military technology to help Ukraine develop and build long range missiles that some believe might have to be initially operated and targeted by German military personnel, which Putin has said will be considered an act of war on the part of Berlin. He has suggested that he would respond to any attack on or near Moscow using those missiles fired from Ukraine with a counter-strike on the German capital. Some observers are warning that World War 3 could be a result of that kind of tit-for-tat.

The situation with Iran and Israel also seems to be on the verge of erupting into something much worse, possibly to include a regional escalation that could literally explode. If one can make a judgement based on the ranting by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as interpreted by many in the Israeli media, it would seem that Israel is preparing to interfere with US-Iranian talks by attacking so-called nuclear and military targets in Iran with the expectation that the US will be drawn into the conflict with little resistance from Trump, who in turn is being pressured by a large majority in Congress that is keen on “protecting” Israel. The Congressional demand is particularly ironic as it is Israel that is now and always been the aggressor throughout its region. It is also the lone nuclear power, with nutcases like Zionist Congressman Randy Fine of Florida already calling for “nuking” Gaza in the wake of the recent killing of the two Israeli Embassy officials in Washington.

Fine is only one of the many voices raised in unison to permit Israel to carry out hideous crimes that would not be acceptable if they were initiated by any other country. The Israel Lobby in the US has the power to silence nearly all dissent, as one might note from the Trump law enforcement’s full scale attack on protesters, mostly students. Those protesting have been demonstrating against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people, something which Netanyahu and his ghastly array of murderer-associates do not even make any effort to conceal.

Deportations of foreign students who are appalled by what Israel is doing has been the policy, but more recently it has been expanded to include denying visas to many other students requiring the papers to study in the US. The State Department, which issues the documents, has been tasked with demanding access to potential students’ social media so they can be checked for undesirable content. Now that China is no longer considered a friend, Chinese students are being particularly investigated due to concerns that they might be spies stealing American industrial secrets.

The list of undesirable students is inevitably top heavy with any who have demonstrated against Israel or any who have supported attempts to “boycott, divest from or sanction” (BDS) Israel and its activities. Trump and his staff have repeatedly indicated that the objective is to get rid of foreign students who engage in “antisemitism, pro-Hamas support, or hatred of the United States” and his Administration has now demanded from Harvard and other colleges and universities records that identify all foreign students in the US on education visas to include information on what countries they come from. That means that not all countries will be regarded as equal under the new guidelines.

The witch hunt on foreign students will no doubt grow as there is little within the US government system but for some toothless muttering from the judiciary that would attempt to stop it. Interestingly, however, the way the war on demonstrators is being pursued supports the views of an increasing number of Americans who have negative views of Israel not only because of its war crimes but also due to its virtual control of many aspects of US foreign and national security policy. If Israel persists in its killing of babies that anger will grow, particularly if the United States is dragged into greater killing in Iran, Yemen and Palestine as an accomplice to the slaughter and as the protector of Israel after it does its dirty work. Indeed, Trump is fully on board to removing the Palestinians from what was once Palestine and Netanyahu totally endorses that agenda.

And the special status of the Israelis vis-à-vis the US government and media will become more and more evident as efforts are made to engage in a massive cover-up to protect the Israelis that pretends that the going to war is really in the national interest of the United States. That will mean fixing things so Israel suffers no damage from the consequences of its own actions. An interesting recent article described the plight of Israeli students at Harvard, who are currently subject to the same scrutiny as their fellow foreign nationals at the university, all of whom will reportedly lose their State Department student visas due to the college’s alleged failure to comply with White House demands. There are a reported 160 such students, a considerable portion of which consists of former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers, which means that they may have been party to the actual war crimes and human rights violations that are the source of the world’s negative perception of the Jewish state. Surely, the Trump Administration will jump in to protect these wonderful human beings so I rather suspect that there will soon be legislation that exempts Israeli students in the US from the consequences that the other foreign students are currently confronting. You can bet on it!

And so we have another week in Washington, full of bombast and misrepresentation of facts as the world crumbles around it. Only three years and five more months to go until the next presidential election! If we make it that far!

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post ‘Bad Things’ Happen in Washington appeared first on LewRockwell.

There are two types of evidence in criminal cases — direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence comes in the form of things like confessions, admissions, or eyewitness testimony. Circumstantial evidence comes in the form of indirect evidence.

For people who believe only in direct evidence, they will never accept the fact that the U.S. military-intelligence establishment orchestrated and carried out the assassination of President Kennedy. That’s because there is no direct evidence that has ever surfaced establishing the guilt of the national-security establishment in the assassination. Such people will always fall within the group of people who lament, “Golly, I guess we just will never know who killed JFK.” People in this group will spend their lives scoffing at the “conspiracy theorists” who have arrived at a different conclusion.

On the other hand, for people like me who believe in the validity of circumstantial evidence, there is now no reasonable doubt but that the U.S. national-security establishment orchestrated and carried out the assassination of President Kennedy.

Let me give you an example of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Let’s assume that a witness in a court case testifies that he couldn’t sleep and that he saw it raining all night long.  That’s direct eyewitness evidence that it rained. But let’s assume that he fell asleep instead. The next morning, it isn’t raining but he states that he saw that water was flooding the streets, the lawns were drenched, water was dripping from trees, and nearby streams were overflowing. That is circumstantial — or indirect — evidence that it rained during the night. That evidence can be admitted into a trial, and it is just as valid as direct evidence.

As a former civil and criminal trial attorney, I was trained to think like a lawyer. The more books I read about the Kennedy assassination, the more I became convinced that the military and the CIA were responsible for JFK’s murder. However, I also felt that there simply wasn’t sufficient evidence — direct or circumstantial — to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof used in a criminal case.

There certainly wasn’t any direct evidence in the form of a confession or an admission of guilt in some long-secret memorandum. And while there was a lot of circumstantial evidence of guilt, it simply wasn’t enough, I felt, to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everything changed for me when I read Douglas Horne’s five-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. As I finished reading Horne’s book, I now knew that the national-security establishment had orchestrated and carried out the assassination. No, not by direct evidence but rather by circumstantial evidence.

Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s, firmly established beyond a reasonable doubt that the military conducted a fraudulent autopsy on JFK’s body on the very night of the assassination. Why does that matter? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy being carried out on the body of the president. Once one concludes that the autopsy was fraudulent, one cannot help but conclude that the military-intelligence establishment is guilty of the president’s murder. There is simply no way around it.

I set forth the evidence surrounding the fraudulent autopsy in my book The Kennedy Autopsy, which is essentially a short, easy-to-read synopsis of Horne’s five-volume book. Let me give you just one example of what I’m talking about when I use the word “fraud.”

The physicians who treated JFK at Parkland Hospital steadfastly maintained that he had a massive exit-sized hole in the lower back of his head. They weren’t the only ones. So did nurses who were inside the treating room. So did a Secret Service agent. So did a newsman outside Parkland. In fact, so did two FBI agents at Bethesda Hospital, where the military conducted its autopsy on a top-secret basis. Their evidence constituted direct, eyewitness evidence that there was a massive-exit-sized hole in the lower back of Kennedy’s head. That direct evidence was later corroborated by circumstantial evidence provided by a Navy film expert in Washington, a Navy chief petty officer named Saundra Spencer, who developed, on a top-secret, classified basis, post-mortem autopsy photographs of the president at the Navy photographic center in Washington, D.C. Her sworn testimony before the ARRB in the 1990s established that the autopsy photographs she developed showed a big, exit-sized hole in the back of the president’s head, just as the Dallas eyewitnesses had stated.

A great documentary to watch is JFK: What the Doctors Saw. Or just watch this interview of Dr. Robert McClellan, who was one of the treating physicians at Parkland. Go to 6:05 to watch McClelland describing the massive hole in the back of Kennedy’s head. McClelland is now deceased but for the rest of his life, he never wavered in what he witnessed that fateful afternoon.

Just recently, in the halls of Congress, Dr. Donald Curtis, who I think is now the only physician who treated Kennedy who is still alive, gave sworn testimony before the House Oversight Committee’s Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets. Ironically, Doug Horne gave sworn testimony at the same hearing.

Curtis’s testimony is summarized in an excellent article posted today entitled “The Double Significance of Dr. Curtis” by a lawyer and JFK assassination researcher named Lawrence P. Schapf. Snapf writes, “Dr. Curtis told Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, chair of the the task force, that as he stood next to the president’s left leg, he saw Dr. Clark lift the president’s head and call over each of the department heads to show them the fatal head wound, so that they could see for themselves why he had stopped the resuscitation. Curtis said they all got a good look at the head wound. He remembers Dr. Clark mentioning the cerebellum several times. The cerebellum is inside the lower rear portion of the skull and is key to motor functions.”

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that an official military autopsy photograph shows the back of JFK’s head to be fully intact — that is, no big, exit-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head. Thus, if what all those eyewitnesses stated is true and correct, then that military photograph has to be fraudulent. There is no way around it.

For me, as a lawyer, the direct evidence of all those eyewitnesses, including some of the most competent, honest physicians in the country, is so overwhelming and persuasive that there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn — the military’s autopsy photograph is false and fraudulent.

Moreover, that’s only one part of the overall autopsy fraud. The other parts, including two different brain examinations that were carried out as part of the autopsy that autopsy physicians claimed was only one brain examination, are detailed in my book and Horne’s book.

Once one reaches the conclusion that the military’s autopsy was fraudulent, that necessarily leads to a much bigger conclusion — guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment in the assassination itself. That’s because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None! A fraudulent autopsy is conclusive circumstantial evidence of guilt on the part of the military-intelligence establishment in the assassination of President Kennedy. There is simply no way around it.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Military’s and CIA’s Assassination of JFK appeared first on LewRockwell.

The U.S. President is performing one of his usual stunts:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump – May 30, 2025, 12:09 UTC

…
I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!! The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!

Trump’s take is, of course, nonsense. But to see that one has to take a step back.

Trump had raised absurdly high tariffs against China which then had responded in kind. Additional hostile measures imposed by the U.S. were targeting China’s import and production of semiconductors.

In response China limited the export of products for which it holds a monopoly. These are mainly rare-earth elements and magnets produced with them. While these are rather small items trade-wise they are needed to make modern electrical motors and are thus a significant part of the supply chain for higher level production items.

The high tariffs on products from China threatened to lead to empty shelves in U.S. markets. The financial markets were concerned. The U.S. dollar, stocks markets and treasuries decreased in price. A financial crisis was developing.  Trump had to pull back.

On May 11 the U.S. and Chinese trade representative met in Geneva. In a Joint Statement they agreed on a pull back from high tariffs and to pause other trade related measures. The preamble of the deal is making the most important points:

The Government of the United States of America (the “United States”) and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (“China”),

Recognizing the importance of their bilateral economic and trade relationship to both countries and the global economy;

Recognizing the importance of a sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship;

Reflecting on their recent discussions and believing that continued discussions have the potential to address the concerns of each side in their economic and trade relationship; and

Moving forward in the spirit of mutual opening, continued communication, cooperation, and mutual respect;

The Parties commit to take the following actions by May 14, 2025:

Both sides reduced their tariffs. China also promised to reduce some of its non tariff measures:

China will [..] adopt all necessary administrative measures to suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025.

The financial markets relaxed and everyone was happy about it.

But on May 14, the very same day the new rules were to apply, the U.S. introduced new and extremely harsh measures against Chinese products:

The US Commerce Department issued guidance stating that the use of Huawei Technologies Co’s Ascend artificial intelligence (AI) chips “anywhere in the world” violates the government’s export controls, escalating US efforts to curb technological advances in China.The agency’s Bureau of Industry and Security said in a statement on Tuesday that it is also planning to warn the public about “the potential consequences of allowing US AI chips to be used for training and inference of Chinese AI models”.

While this may not have been a technical breach of the Geneva agreement it certainly violated the spirit of the agreed upon Joint Statement:

Barely a week into a U.S.-China truce in their long-running trade war, Beijing has accused Washington of violating the temporary agreement reached in Geneva.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry said on Monday that the U.S. was taking “discriminatory measures” against China, after the U.S. Commerce Department recently warned American businesses to avoid Chinese-made microchips, specifically those produced by Chinese tech giant Huawei.

Both countries have walked back a series of punitive actions against the other as part of a 90-day pause agreed at the recent talks in Switzerland after U.S. President Donald Trump had imposed heavy tariffs. A consultation mechanism was created to discuss their wide-ranging trade disagreements, but the scope of the special channel may now be under dispute.

The Chinese government’s strongly worded pushback against sustained U.S. industrial policy in emerging and critical technologies—such as advanced computer chips fueling the race for AI supremacy—suggests the deep-rooted economic security concerns present in both camps will not be easily addressed despite agreements on paper.

China demanded that the U.S. “correct its mistakes“. As the U.S. made not attempt to do so China slow walked (archived) the lifting of export restrictions on rare-earth metals and on magnets made thereof:

On May 12, the countries announced after weekend meetings in Geneva that they would suspend most of their recently imposed tariffs. Since then, however, both governments have shown that they are still prepared to wield controls over critical exports as weapons against one another, with moves that are potentially even more damaging to trade and global supply chains.

China has restricted its exports of rare earth magnets, which are crucial for cars, semiconductors, aircraft and many other applications. Close to 90 percent of the world’s rare earth metals, including magnets, are produced in China.

And the United States on May 13 banned the latest semiconductors from Huawei, a Chinese electronics giant. Then on Wednesday, President Trump suspended the shipment of American semiconductors and some aerospace equipment needed for China’s commercial aircraft, the C919, a signature project in China’s push toward economic self-reliance.
…
Last week, Ford Motor temporarily closed a factory in Chicago that makes Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles after one of its suppliers ran out of the magnets. In most new cars, the magnets are used in dozens of electric motors that operate brake and steering systems, fuel injectors and even power seats.

On Monday, China granted some export licenses for rare earth magnets to be shipped to the United States and Europe, …
…
Several companies in Europe, including Volkswagen, were granted permission by Beijing to continue procuring rare earth magnets soon after China began enforcing export controls on them in April. American companies have been juggling factory schedules, reassigning their dwindling magnet supplies to continue making their most profitable products.

China asserts that the U.S. is in breech of the Geneva agreement. As the U.S. introduced new non-tariff barriers against Chinese products China has stopped to lift its own non-tariff measures against the export of products the U.S. needs.

Trump’s claim that China “HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US” is obfuscating the fact that the U.S. was the first to violate its commitments.

This again proves that the U.S. is non-agreement-capable (недоговороспособны (archived)).

Anyone dealing with it is well advised to always keep measures in hand that can be used to compel adherence to whatever agreement is made.

China, like Russia, Iran and others, has long learned that.

So what is Mr. NICE GUY going to do about that?

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump Accuses China ff Violating Agreement He Did Not Adhere to appeared first on LewRockwell.

Americans may not have as many rituals as some other people do, but we have some. One of those is graduation, symbolizing the transition from one stage of life to another and a celebration of a young person’s accomplishments. (We may actually overdo these, as what was once a transition from college and high school studies is now often celebrated from even pre-nursery school. Still, it plays a significant part in life, structuring time and change.) Parents and grandparents who sat through boring recitals, sports events, prize days, supported kids dealing with difficult interpersonal issues, hard courses, college admission hurdles, and sacrificed to pay the cost of schooling can now cheer (or mourn) that those activities are now over.

For all the relatives’ work, they now get to sit in hot, muggy weather on uncomfortable folding chairs and listen to a variety of speakers selected who knows how. I’m old enough to remember when, at worst, we heard boring, anodyne speeches to graduates about making your mark, improving the world, and sharing the blessings of your newly acquired knowledge with a world desperate for the pearls of newly acquired knowledge. Maybe a few dumb jokes were thrown in. Then everyone got their diplomas and headed for the nearest bar.

In recent years, graduations have become stages for performative, divisive screeds at a largely captive audience. You don’t have to tolerate this. Years ago, I walked out in the middle of some of these speeches at very fine universities, Duke and UCLA law school. I’m not sure the even more offensive ceremonies these days would lure me to stay seated for more than 10 minutes.

You needn’t play prisoner to this nonsense even if you loved your graduate. In fact, if you are ahead of the game in their senior year, you might make it clear to the schools that you expect respectful and non-divisive speakers, or you will walk out, even at the risk of disrupting the ceremony.

At Duke, when I walked out, the speakers chose to alienate the audience by promoting pro-Palestinian nonsense, and at UCLA, in an audience of mostly poor immigrant parents whose children had succeeded in law school, the speaker who rankled me complained there weren’t enough black students in the class. (Should UCLA have refused to admit meritorious Vietnamese and Eastern European first-generation American students whose parents, at substantial risk, fled here from oppression with nothing and no one to help them, to make room for lesser-qualified applicants?)

Highlighted this week are speakers at various Ivies, but it was a typical pattern in many colleges and universities where the psychological and social meaning of the ritual was debased and the participants insulted and abused. I surely haven’t documented all the outrageous behavior, but it’s widespread enough to see how ubiquitous the move is to deprive deserving students and those who love them of a traditional ritual of passage.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia

In her Harvard graduation speech, Indian American student Shruthi Kumar stood with pro-Gaza, pro-Palestine protesters.

At the Harvard Kennedy School, “the elected class speaker used his time to talk about Palestine and Harvard’s complicity in the ongoing Nakba… ‘While we celebrate our graduation, Harvard University, threatened by the student uprising for Palestinian liberation, has chosen to withhold degrees from our peers who have not only fulfilled every graduation requirement, but more importantly who have exemplified veritas through their dissent.’”

A Yale graduate disrupted the diploma ceremony by loudly chanting “FREE FREE PALESTINE,” as the students echoed the chants in solidarity with Palestine.

Princeton University graduates handed the President a Palestinian flag during their graduation ceremony, protesting the university’s complicity with Israel.

Graduating students at Hunter College’s Silberman School of Social Work disrupted their ceremony with chants and banners in support of Palestine. “Turn your back on Silberman, all eyes on Palestine!” “PALESTINE WILL FREE US ALL.”

Columbia: Acting president Claire Shipman was greeted by boos, jeers and “Free Mahmoud” shouts, and a number of grads tore up or burned their diplomas to “Free Palestine.”

Read the Whole Article

The post It’s Graduation Time Again appeared first on LewRockwell.

This week I was researching the history of the modern African economy as well as the financial effects of “colonialism”, largely in an effort to discern if Africa is actually better off with or without western influence. One can of course argue that racial divisions like Apartheid in South Africa or segregation in Rhodesia have their own oppressive social effects beyond the financial. There’s also the argument that only “white colonists” ever benefited from the infrastructure they built (which is actually untrue, wherever white colonists were established, everything from water access to roads to medical care improved for everyone).

However, I think it’s fair to ask if these nations were experiencing growth and prosperity under white governance, or if things were relatively the same. We’re not supposed to talk about it – We’re only supposed to say “colonialism bad”. I don’t care about that, I just want to know what the realities are.

In the process I came across an interesting video featuring a black South African man who presented the race issue and the South Africa issue in a way that was simple but it brought impressive clarity. In summary he said:

“Africans are forever chasing the white man.”

The phrase “black fatigue” comes to mind, but again, it’s far more about culture than skin color. It’s something that white people like me aren’t supposed discuss.

Frankly, I find race divisions to be a distraction from the bigger problem, which is elitism and the sabotage of the west from within by wealthy oligarchs so that they can replace it with an authoritarian socialist “Utopia”. That said, I cannot ignore the fact that certain minorities in the US tend to lean majority far left, or that most third world migrants hold socialist ideals.

To be sure, there are millions of white woke liberals helping to fuel this fire, but again, most of the black community is happy to be used. These people become the enemy because they have allowed themselves to be weaponized in the hopes of getting a piece of the western pie before whole thing is ransacked. They don’t want to build for themselves, so, they voluntarily become the barbarians at the gate.

My advice to these people is to stop. Stop chasing the white man. Stop trying to feed off the western world. Put in the effort to construct your own great societies with your own accomplishments. No one is stopping you except yourselves. You are being duped into acting as a battering ram for globalism and multiculturalism; you are a tool for deconstructing the west.

By extension, stop coveting what white people have built within your own communities and start seeing such people as valuable allies in creating something better.

If you try to take from them they will eventually retaliate and it will not be a pretty sight. But, the interesting thing about white people (at least the conservative types) is that they will often help you if you ask nicely. Instead of threatening them, maybe try learning from them? Most white people I know love to improve their communities in any way they can, and they enjoy helping people who want to help themselves.

Instead of seeing white people as the enemy because of historic “crimes” which every single ethnic group has been guilty of, why not look to the future? Of course, this would require people in the third world to abandon their socialist leanings. Far left ideology is a poison that makes nations and cultures weak. It makes them perpetual beggars. To improve one’s future, one must aspire to create, not steal.

Why not stop chasing the white man and work with him instead?

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post The Third World Is Forever Chasing the White Man appeared first on LewRockwell.

The effort on my part to tell the truth is costly, not merely financially.  The large costs are to my reputation and to my freedom.  For example, some years ago a website called PropOrNot, funded by we-don’t-know-who, perhaps the US Department of State, or US AID, or George Soros, or  Israel, identified me as a “Putin agent/dupe.”  I was designated a “Russian agent” because I asked a simple question:  Is it really in our interest to risk war with Russia, which in all likelihood will end up nuclear, for the sake of Washington’s hegemony?

If one complains of the annihilation of Palestinians and Palestine by the Israelis, one is labeled an “anti-semite” and “Holocaust Denier.”

If one complains about white ethnic America being overrun by immigrant-invaders, one is labeled racist.

And so on.  Hopefully, my readers know the drill.

It is not only my reputation.  Can I risk showing up at an airport and going through TSA?  What is the likelihood that I am on a list?  If Tulsi Gabbard can be harassed by TSA and forced to miss flights while they search her for the third time in a row, what can I expect from DEI hires who find my name on a list?  In America today, I can be denied a flight by a Muslim TSA employee or an immigrant-invader who just walked across the border and was integrated into America with a TSA job.

Think about this for a moment.  A former presidential appointee as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury confirmed in office by the US Senate has no assurance that he will be able to board a US airliner in a US airport.

If I make a trip abroad, will I be harassed on re-entry?

This is the cost of telling the truth.

I sometimes wonder what the value of truth is to most Americans, or perhaps I should say a better approximation to the truth than is available in official narratives.  Most Americans want to hear what they already believe.  When they hear something different it upsets them because it doesn’t fit the framework from which they understand what they mistakenly think is reality. I have found in my life that telling the truth is the best way to make enemies.  That’s why so few people tell the truth.

A person who takes the risk of telling the truth likes to see that there are people who appreciate it.  This site receives no support from the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, George Soros, US AID, the Israel Lobby, corporations, foreign governments.  This website is financed by monthly donations of who I think are the 5,000 Americans who encouraged me about 15 years ago to continue writing.  They constitute less than 1% of the readership.

So quarterly I reach out to the 99% and ask that they support the website if it serves them, which I assume it does as the website has 2 million readers and 5 million visits annually. At times when I have checked, Word Press has reported that my website is read in every country on planet Earth. In some countries tens of thousands read it; in others three or four people, probably CIA station chiefs.

In a world with nuclear weapons and biolabs busy at work weaponizing viruses or whatever they are, life is precarious.  There is huge worrying on the left about “global warming,” but little about nuclear winter and US biolabs sprinkled all over the world.  Recently, the Trump administration had to stop US funding of the weaponization of bird flu in the Wuhan lab in China.  How was it possible for this funding to exist?  What kind of insanity is ruling over us?

If you look closely, you will see that in the Western World life is no longer viewed as positive, something to be protected. I am not just speaking about abortion. The World Economic Forum, a collection of anti-human elites and Bill Gates, seem committed to reducing human life on Earth from 7 or 8 billion to 500 million.  Perhaps this is why no one in the West is disturbed by Israel’s genocide of Palestine–a mere 2 million–and not only the genocide of the Palestinians but also their country.

Ask yourself, why is your life precarious?  Compare yourself to those on the American frontier in the 19th century.  They are threatened by competent and committed warriors–Apaches, Comanches, Sioux–a real but minuscule threat compared to nuclear war and bioweapons and laboratory prepared and released pandemics. Americans today are far less safe than Americans on the frontier in the 1800s.

This should disturb Americans, but they seem unaware of it.

If you appreciate my efforts to elevate your understanding of our time, show it with a contribution.  It is the only way I have of knowing my efforts are appreciated.

The post Soon Truth Will Be Too Costly To Tell appeared first on LewRockwell.

Israel Has Wiped Out Over 1,000 Entire Families
International Middle East Media Center, 27 May 2025

Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house. We could not, so help us God, do otherwise.

For we are sick at heart, our hearts give us no rest for thinking of the Land of Burning Children. And for thinking of that other Child, of whom the poet Luke speaks. The infant was taken up in the arms of an old man, whose tongue grew resonant and vatic at the touch of that beauty.

And the old man spoke; this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, a sign that is spoken against. Small consolation; a child born to make trouble, and to die for it, the First Jew (not the last) to be subject of a “definitive solution.” He sets up the cross and dies on it; in the Rose Garden of the executive mansion, on the D.C. Mall, in the courtyard of the Pentagon.

That was Father Daniel Berrigan’s statement read in court in October 1968 during the trial of The Catonsville Nine. On May 17th, 1968, with Democratic President Lyndon Johnson presiding over 500,000 + American troops waging war against Vietnam, nine people, including Father Daniel Berrigan and his brother Father Phillip Berrigan, entered a draft board in Catonsville, Maryland and removed draft files of those who were about to be sent to Vietnam. They took these files outside and burned them with home-made napalm, a weapon commonly used on civilians by the U.S. forces. They were sentenced to federal prison.

Less than a month after their sentencing, the Republican Richard Nixon was elected U.S. president on a campaign promise that he had a “secret peace plan” to end the U.S. war against Vietnam. He did the opposite, intensified the war, spreading it to Laos and Cambodia, killing millions. He was reelected in 1972 while committing this carnage. He won 49 out of 50 states. The war ended in 1975 with a U.S. defeat.

My name is Aaron Bushnell, and I am an active duty member of the United States Air Force. I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest but, compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.

That is the statement of Senior Airman (SRA) Aaron Bushnell, 25 years-old, who martyred himself when he immolated himself outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 25, 2024, to protest the Israel/U.S genocide of Palestinians. Aaron had previously said: “What would I do if my country was committing genocide? The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now”

Right now is still now, 16 months later and ongoing.

I am writing this on a piece of paper but you will most probably read it on a screen, the same screens that have provided ample news and views of the burning of Palestinian children in Gaza, another new Land of Burning Children. If you have not seen such pictures, it is because you have turned away in what Jean Paul Sartre called “bad faith,” knowing what they contain and demand of your conscience, but hiding that radicalizing truth from yourself.

Those pictures demand, at the very least, that you condemn and never support those who carry out these atrocities – in the U.S.A. that means Joseph Biden and Donald Trump, first and foremost, neither of whom you can you ever again support by saying he is or was “the lesser of two evils” – just as Martin Luther King, Jr. did when he was jolted by photographs of dead and napalmed Vietnamese children in early 1967 in William Pepper’s Ramparts magazine’s photographic essay, “The Children of Vietnam.”  King was so sickened by the photos that he, against all advice, publicly turned vociferously against the U.S. war against Vietnam, and was therefore assassinated by the U.S. government the following year, one month before the Catonsville protest that was less than three weeks before the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.

If you follow King’s example and reject evil, you will not be assassinated, but you will have redeemed your soul.

Thanks to Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451, many know that paper burns at Fahrenheit 451.

But at what temperature do children burn?  Do you need to know?

The history of American presidential politics has often been a tale of the election of “the lesser of two evils.” And that justification has been used time-and-again to support the savage killing of innocent people around the world. The presidential elections of this century tell that story very clearly, just as many decades of history confirm U.S. support for Israel’s ongoing attempts to exterminate the Palestinian people.

The lesser of two evils apologists have been very active in recent years, defending their indefensible politicians.

A good friend of mine, a small monetary contributor to the Democratic party and a consistent voter for Democratic presidential candidates, has long accused me of going easy on Donald Trump. This began during the presidential campaign in 2016, but had its roots previously in my critique of Barack Obama (following that of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) who in the words of the late Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report “may go down in history as the most effective – and deceptive – imperialist of them all.” He wrote this in the foreword to Jeremy Kuzmarov’s searing documentation of Barack Obama’s war crimes of bombing seven Muslim countries, destroying Libya, and engineering a coup d’état in Ukraine, Obama’s Unending Wars. My friend’s opinion is shared by many other friends and extended family members who won’t read my writing. Without saying it, they imply that I am an apologist for Mr. Trump and unfairly oppose the Democratic warmongers, Obama and Biden, whom they consider peace lovers.

Other friends and associates, traditional Democrats, enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama in 2008 after eight years of lies, crackdowns on civil liberties (the Patriot Act, etc.), and the endless savage wars waged by Republican George W. Bush’s criminal administration. The eight prior years of Democrat Bill Clinton’s reversal of economic safeguards for the poor, his endless bombing and sanctions against Iraq resulting in his acceptable deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children, and his destruction of Yugoslavia and the bombing of Serbia, gave them pause, but Bush’s policies were so evil that Obama seemed like a breadth of fresh air in comparison. [Admission: I have voted for one U.S. president in my lifetime – McGovern in 1972.] But soon Obama showed them his true colors and they became disconsolate. And when in 2016 it became apparent that the Democrats, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton conjured up Russiagate to make certain that the reality-TV Trump not get elected but he did, they moved gradually toward Trump’s camp. Now they say that I have been too hard on Trump, who, they maintain, is a man of peace, despite his complete and longstanding support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, his interventions in Syria and the bombing of Yemen, his policy on Ukraine during his first term that was a continuation of the policy pursued by the Obama administration, and his lack of an executive order when taking office this year ending all support for Ukraine.

Both sides tout their peacemaker presidents as they may, shouting peace, peace, while there is no peace. That the U.S. has a permanent warfare state seems lost on them. That they are being played by a sycophant media that thrives on gamesmanship while supporting the warfare state never really penetrates their thinking.

Nevertheless, between easy and hard, I have given much thought to their judgments, only to conclude that both groups are falsely driven by desperate emotions, ahistorical naïveté, and wishful thinking. For it was clear before every presidential election since 1964 (with the possible exception of Democratic Senator George McGovern in 1972) that we were being taken for a ride by bi-partisan thugs for the American Empire, Trump surely not excluded. But pipe-dreams prevailed and the empire rolled on, driven by a propaganda machine second to none.

That propaganda machine is now so powerful because it is so obvious. It’s like those advertisements that mock the products that they are selling only to sell more. Considering themselves too smart for such stupidity, the most well-meaning and intelligent individuals are caught in its tentacles; they have had their minds occupied by its cognitive infiltration. Something so obvious just couldn’t be true for them; couldn’t convince anyone but the most stupid. This is Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle.

Do they consider the sights and sounds of the U.S./Israel genocide of Palestinians real? Do they ask, “What is Truth?” Do they, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands and declare their innocence of the blood of Palestinians even as they stand behind their chosen presidential genociders?

Yet I have concluded that it is not primarily propaganda or intelligence that has created this bifurcated checkmate, this stasis of thinking wherein two sides aggressively assert their leaders’ good intentions as opposed to the other. What is presented as terribly complex and confusing is unheard-of-simple, to paraphrase the great Russian poet and novelist Boris Pasternak. It is heretical to say so, but it is so: Too many people have lost their minds, they are alienated from their own experience and the logic of simple facts. And by doing so have buried their consciences. The Scottish psychiatrist Ronald Laing put it this way in 1967:

There are forms of alienation that are relatively strange to statistically ‘normal’ forms of alienation. The ‘normally’ alienated person, by reason of the fact that he acts more or less like everyone else, is taken to be sane. Other forms of alienation that are out of step with the prevailing state of alienation are those that are labeled by the ‘normal’ majority as bad or mad.

The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man.

We need only consider the one simple example of Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinians. It has been going on in plain sight for sixteen months under President Biden and four months under President Trump with his full continuing U.S. support. No American can honestly say they didn’t know this genocide was being carried out by their country. According to Israel’s Defense Ministry, as reported on May 28, 2025 by antiwar.com, “The US has delivered 90,000 tons of bombs, guns, and other military equipment to Israel since October 7, 2023, to support the genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to numbers from the Israeli Defense Ministry. The Defense Ministry said Tuesday that the 800th plane carrying US weapons arrived in Israel in the morning, and 140 ships have also delivered US equipment in the nearly 600 days since October 7.”

Knowing about this genocide where well over 50,000 + Palestinians at a minimum, more than a third of them children, have been killed, burnt alive, bombed apart, and far more wounded and starved to death with Biden and Trump’s full support, should make any person who has retained one scintilla of humanity reject these bloodthirsty killers instantly and forever.

But it is not so. They retain the support of their ardent followers. They excuse them. Men who burn children alive are not rejected outright, but are found to have redeeming qualities by their political supporters. Something so inconceivably terrible is happening in full view, but what it signifies about Biden and Trump, the Democrats and the Republicans, is let slide, as if genocide were just a minor foible. These men are often elected by their followers as the lesser of two evils, as if the genocidal slaughter of innocents were a lesser evil. As if …. so many as ifs. So many excuses.

Yes, it is unheard-of-simple. While there are endless U.S. wars of aggression and massive slaughters of innocents one could cite to make a case against the support of U.S. leaders, this one example should suffice. You either unequivocally accept or reject those who support genocide. No ifs, ands, or buts.

At what temperature do children burn? Do you really not know?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post The Lesser of Two Evils: The Burning of Children Instead of Paper appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ever since I was a little child something seemed off about the fact everyone would get hysterical about how I needed to avoid sunlight and always wear sunscreen whenever we had an outdoor activity—so to the best of my ability I just didn’t comply. As I got older, I started to notice that beyond the sun feeling really good, anytime I was in the sun, the veins under my skin that were exposed to the sun would dilate, which I took as a sign the body craved sunlight and wanted it to draw into the circulation. Later still, I learned that sunlight has many remarkable but almost unknown critical functions such as:

1. Many of the primary rhythms in the body (e.g., the circadian rhythm) are regulated by regular sunlight exposure (both on the skin and into the eyes), and we frequently find having patients go outside and expose their face to natural sunlight first thing in the morning is immensely helpful for a variety of conditions (e.g., insomnia and depression).

2. Sunlight drives blood circulation (which is critical for health as when, impaired microcirculation impairs many chronic degenerative conditions). Specifically, when water is exposed to a polar surface and an ambient energy source (particularly infrared light), it will assume a state where it behaves like a liquid crystalline gel and displaces protons, transforming from H2O to a H3O2 (H1.5O) lattice.

In addition to this lattice creating much of the foundational strength and stability for the body (as it is non-compressible, forms a robust barrier and continuously reforms after being sheared apart) it also is able to transform the ambient energy source into something the body can use (in effect functioning as a primitive solar panel). This is because the hydrogen ions being displaced from the water matrix creates an electrical energy gradient (H1.5O– vs. H+) and because the hydrogen ions mutually repel each other, the potential for spontaneous flow.

Experimental setups, in turn, have shown this can easily be harnessed to create a “spontaneous” water flow and many biological systems in turn are structured to use the formation of these H+ ions to drive circulation (e.g., trees that suck water up from the ground). In the case of the human body, mechanistically, the heart cannot provide enough power to drive blood through the circulation (and likewise in many cases blood flow occurs despite the pressure gradient not supporting it), whereas the H+ mechanism allows this circulatory flow to occur, and we frequently observe exposure to sunlight or infrared light (which it some extent is also emitted by one human to another when they are in very close proximity) significantly increases fluid circulation and increases general wellness.
Note: other critical fluid circulations (e.g., interstitial fluid or the lymphatics) also rely upon this mechanism. In turn, I now believe that many skin issues result from the micro-interstitial fluid flow beneath the skin stagnating (e.g., toxins build up in the region or the skin is no longer able to transfer sunlight into the circulation and overheats).

3. A pioneering researcher found biological systems were exquisitely sensitive to light spectrums and that an excess or deficiency of key wavelengths created a wide range of issues (e.g., poor plant growth, impaired fertility, different sex ratios of offspring, greatly increased susceptibility to infectious diseases and cancers, significantly increased aggression and hyperactivity etc.). Since standard glass blocks these wavelengths and most lights do not emit them, in addition to increasing agricultural productivity, he was able to greatly improve people’s health (including cancer patients) by putting them on light “diets.” In this, one of his most interesting discoveries was that the eyes are the primary place light enters the circulation (as the eyes are completely translucent and contain very then blood vessels), and as such, he frequently saw dramatic improvements in chronic illnesses (e.g., chronic arthritis) once he replaced an individuals eye glasses with full spectrum glasses.
Note: based on my experiences with ultraviolet blood irradiation (and studying the properties of hemoglobin), I’ve come to believe that blood conducts light, hence making the small exposure through the eyes quite significant.

4. One of the most effective therapeutic modalities I’ve come across is ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI), which works by creating a direct line of blood from a UV light source to the blood stream—something I now believe works because people are not getting enough sunlight for sufficient amounts to enter the blood stream. UVBI (discussed further here) was originally used to treat a wide range of otherwise terminal infectious illnesses (at a time when only the earliest antibiotics existed), then quickly observed to also greatly autoimmune illnesses (e.g., asthma), surgical complications and many complex neurological and circulatory conditions—much of which was due to it greatly increasing circulation and reawakening cells or organs that had shut down.

Note: typically I use UVBI either for someone who just does not feel well (e.g., due to fatigue), someone who is struggling with an acute infection like a flu (as it will often rapidly eliminate them), for a chronic viral condition like EBV or shingles (as it is one of the most effective options for these types of illnesses), to prevent the complications of chemotherapy, or for a myriad of other illnesses (e.g., a variety of autoimmune disorders) when it is not feasible to get a more targeted treatment for the disorder.

Once I became a medical student (at which point I was familiar with the myriad of benefits of sunlight), I was struck by how neurotic dermatologists were about avoiding sunlight—for instance, in addition to hearing every patient I saw there be lectured about the importance of avoiding sunlight, through my classmates, I learned of dermatologists in the northern latitudes (which had low enough sunlight people suffered from seasonal affective disorder) effectively require their students to wear sunscreen and clothing which covered most of their body while indoors. At this point my perspective on the issue changed to “this crusade against the sun is definitely coming from the dermatologists” and “what on earth is wrong with these people?” A few years ago I finally learned the last piece of the puzzle through Robert Yoho MD and hence was inspired to write this entire article.

The Monopolization of Medicine

Throughout my life, I’ve noticed three curious patterns in the medical industry:

•They will promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or smoking cessation).

•They will promote clearly unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of unsafe and ineffective pharmaceuticals).

•They will attack clearly beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunlight exposure, eating eggs, consuming raw dairy, or eating butter).

As best as I can gather, much of this is rooted in the scandalous history of the American Medical Association, when in 1899, George H. Simmons, MD took possession of the floundering organization (MDs were going out of business because their treatments were barbaric and didn’t work). He, in turn, started a program to give the AMA seal of approval in return for the manufacturers disclosing their ingredients and agreeing to advertise in a lot of AMA publications (they were not however required to prove their product was safe or effective). This maneuver was successful, and in just ten years, increased their advertising revenues 5-fold, and their physician membership 9-fold.

At the same time this happened, the AMA moved to monopolize the medical industry by doing things such as establishing a general medical education council (which essentially said their method of practicing medicine was the only credible way to practice medicine) which allowed them to then become the national accrediting body for medical schools. This in turn allowed them to end the teaching of many of the competing models of medicine such as homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and to a lesser extent, osteopathy—as states would often not give licenses to graduates of schools with a poor AMA rating.

Likewise, Simmons (along with his successor, Fishbein, who reigned from 1924 to 1950) established a “Propaganda Department” in 1913 to attack all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. Fishbein was very good at what he did and could often organize massive media campaigns against anything he elected to deem “quackery” that were heard by millions of Americans (at a time when the country was much smaller).

After Simmons and Fishbein created this monopoly, they were quick to leverage it. This included blackmailing pharmaceutical companies to advertise with them, demanding the rights for a variety of healing treatments to be sold to the AMA, and sending the FDA or FTC after anyone who refused to sell out (which in at least in one case was proved in court since one of Fishbein’s “compatriots” thought what he was doing was wrong and testified against him).

For example, when UVBI was discovered, it rapidly swept through America’s hospitals as it saved many patients who would have otherwise died and was featured throughout the media (e.g., The New York Times and Time Magazine). The AMA then offered to “validate” Knott’s device for $100,000 plus the rights to the therapy, with Knott getting a small sales cut in return. Knott refused and the AMA conducted a study designed to fail and then reported UVBI offered no benefit (despite many of the patients in the study improving) after which hospitals rapidly abandoned the “debunked” practice (whereas UVBI is still used in the hospitals of other countries like Russia due to the phenomenal results it provides for “incurable” illnesses).

Similarly, around this same time, the AMA approached the inventors of many alternative cancer therapies (such as Krebiozen, Hoxey’s remedies and the Koch Catalysts) and pressured them to sign away almost all of the rights for the treatment to the AMA or be blacklisted. In each case, the inventor refused because they wanted it to remain affordable to everyday people (e.g., the AMA had initially used Hoxey’s remedy but massively inflated the cost for it). So, following their refusal, the AMA launched a blitz against the therapy, and then with the help of the FDA, buried it (which was later corroborated by court cases and a 1953 Congressional investigation).

In short, because of the power the AMA wielded, a single fraudulent negative study could immediately erase large bodies of independent research showing otherwise. Because of this, many remarkable medical innovations were successfully erased from history and part of my life’s work and many of the things I use in practice are essentially the therapies Simmons and Fishbein largely succeeded in wiping off the Earth.

Note: to illustrate that this is not just ancient history, consider how viciously and ludicrously the AMA attacked the use of ivermectin to treat COVID (as it was the biggest competitor to the COVID cartel). Likewise, one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy he and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Korey, what they’re doing to ivermectin they’ve been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science.

Most infamously, Big Tobacco became one of the AMA’s biggest clients, which led to countless ads like this one being published by the AMA which persisted until Fishbein was forced out (at which point he became a highly paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry):

Note: because of how nasty they were, investigators gradually discovered how unscrupulous and sociopathic both Simmons and Fishbein were. Unfortunately, while I know from first-hand experience this was the case (e.g., a friend of mine knew Fishbein’s secretary and she stated that Fishbein was a truly horrible person she regularly saw carry out despicable actions and I likewise knew people who knew the revolutionary healers Fishbein targeted), I was never able to confirm many of the abhorrent allegations against Simmons because the book they all cite as a reference did not provide its sources, while the other books which provide different but congruent allegations are poorly sourced.

The Benefits of Sunlight

One of the oldest “proven” (but un-patentable) therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it.

Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.

Because of how successful the war against sunlight has been many people are unaware of its benefits. For example:

1. Sunlight is critical for mental health. This is most well appreciated with depression (e.g., seasonal affective disorder) but in reality the effects are far more broad reaching (e.g., unnatural light exposure destroys your circadian rhythm).

Note: I really got this point during my medical internship, where after a long period of night shifts under fluorescent lights, noticed I was becoming clinically depressed (which has never otherwise happened to me and led to a co-resident I was close to offering to prescribe antidepressants). I decided to do an experiment (I do this a lot—e.g., I try to never recommend treatments to patients I haven’t already tried on myself) and stuck with it for a few more days, then went home and bathed under a full spectrum bulb, at which point I almost instantly felt better. I feel my story is particularly important for healthcare workers since many people in the system are forced to spend long periods of their under artificial light and their mental health (e.g., empathy) suffers greatly from it. For example, consider this study of Chinese operating room nurses which found their mental health was significantly worse than the general population and that this decline was correlated to their lack of sunlight exposure.

2. A large epidemiological study found women with higher solar UVB exposure had only half the incidence of breast cancer as those with lower solar exposure and that men with higher residential solar exposure had only half the incidence of fatal prostate cancer.
Note: a 50% reduction in either of these cancers greatly exceeds what any of the approaches we use to treat or prevent them have accomplished.

3. A 20 year prospective study evaluated 29,518 women in Southern Sweden where average women from each age bracket with no significant health issues were randomly selected, essentially making it one of the best possible epidemiologic studies that could be done. It found that women who were sun avoidant compared to those who had regular exposure to sunlight were:

• Overall 60% more likely to die, being roughly 50% more likely to die than the moderate exposure group and roughly 130% more likely to die than the group with high sun exposure.
Note: to be clear, there are very few interventions in medicine that do anything close to this.

•The largest gain was seen in the risk of dying from heart disease, while the second gain was seen in the risk of all causes of death besides heart disease and cancer (“other”), and the third largest gain was seen in deaths from cancer.
Note: the investigators concluded the smaller benefit in reduced cancer deaths was in part an artifact of the subjects living longer and hence succumbing to a type of cancer that would have only affected them later in life.

• The largest benefit was seen in smokers, to the point non-smokers who avoided the sun had the same risk of dying as smokers who got sunlight.
Note: I believe this and the cardiovascular benefits are in large part due to sunlight catalyzing the synthesis of nitric oxide (which is essential for healthy blood vessels) and sulfates (which coat cells like the endothelium) and in conjunction with infrared (or sunlight) are what create the liquid crystalline water that is essential for the protection and function of the cardiovascular system).

So given all of this, I would say that you need a really good justification to avoid sun exposure.

Skin Cancer

According to the American Academy of Dermatology:

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. It is estimated that approximately 9,500 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with skin cancer every day.

Basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, the two most common forms of skin cancer, are highly treatable if detected early and treated properly.

Because exposure to UV light is the most preventable risk factor for all skin cancers, the American Academy of Dermatology encourages everyone to stay out of indoor tanning beds and protect their skin outdoors by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing — including a long-sleeved shirt, pants, a wide-brimmed hat and sunglasses with UV protection — and applying a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher to all skin not covered by clothing.

Likewise according to the Skin Cancer Foundation:

More than 2 people die of skin cancer in the U.S. every hour.

That’s sounds pretty scary. Let’s now break down exactly what that means.

Note: fortunately, there is much more awareness of the vast benefits of vitamin D now (which comes from sunlight exposure). However, since many of the sun’s benefits come from things besides creating vitamin D (e.g., consider the benefits of light I cited at the start of the article), the current position dermatology is beginning to pivot to (that you can substitute “unsafe” sunlight exposure with vitamin D) is not advice I can at all support.

Read the Whole Article

The post Dermatology’s Disastrous War Against The Sun appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

WLT Report

The post Secret Service Whistleblower Reveals Joe Biden Would “Get Lost In His Closet” At The White House appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner. 

See here.

The post Trump Regime Wages War on Organic Agriculture appeared first on LewRockwell.