Lew Rockwell Institute

The tariff stories that Americans have been told deserve to be questioned. First, we Americans are overwhelmingly paying for the tariffs. They are “slapped’ on us. Meanwhile, China is selling less to America, but they simply shifted to selling to the rest of the world, and they’re breaking records with trade surpluses. So China has not been “slapped,” while we Americans have. At the same time, America has lost 78,000 manufacturing jobs since the beginning of 2025. Something isn’t right here.

The post Trump Slaps More Tariffs on The American People — When Will It End? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The Daily Caller

The post Several Mass Shooters Have Taken Psychiatric Drugs. RFK Wants Answers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

WLT Report

The post Report posts video of palm pistol assassin appeared first on LewRockwell.

The most powerful public statement of my lifetime—a statement so revolutionary it could transform our society and culture in ways we can’t foresee—was uttered by a grieving widow this past Sunday.

“That young man…I forgive him.”

The widow, of course, was Erika Kirk, the wife of slain Christian activist Charlie Kirk, and the “young man” was his alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson. At a memorial service full of amazing speeches (Secretary of State and Catholic Marco Rubio explaining the Incarnation and the Gospel in 90 seconds was just one of many highlights), Mrs. Kirk unleashed a spiritual weapon beyond all human comprehension, beyond the wisdom of this world: forgiveness. She did this on a personal level, as only she could do as a widow, but her public act of forgiveness might very well impact us all.

Before we talk about the public consequences of Mrs. Kirk’s act, however, let us not gloss over the difficulty behind it. I remember living in Steubenville, Ohio in 1999 when three Franciscan University students were slain. At a memorial service, the mother of one of those students forgave the killers. At first I thought it was a nice gesture, but one that any Christian should and would do. But then I considered what I would do if someone killed one of my children or my wife, and I realized forgiveness is not something I’m not sure I could offer. It hit me what an extreme and formidable act forgiveness can be.

If a loved one is killed in cold blood, the natural—the human—reaction is anger and then hatred toward the one who took away your beloved. To forgive in such a situation is literally humanly impossible: you need Christ and his grace to do it. And Erika Kirk accepted that grace and did the impossible: she forgave the one who had committed this incredible evil against her. After she made her act of forgiveness, the crowd immediately recognized what it meant and what it took and rose to their feet in appreciation, with very few dry eyes in the building (or among the millions of people watching online).

As I said, this was a personal act by Erika Kirk, but it unleashed a spiritual power that can make a lasting impact on society by showing clearly for all to see that there are two sides in this battle, and one is good and one is evil. When George Floyd died in 2020, it unleashed Satanic forces that threatened to tear our country apart. There was no talk of forgiveness; just payback in the form of destruction and death. Yet when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, it unleashed perhaps the greatest proclamation of the Gospel in this country—in word and in deeds—we’ve seen since perhaps the 19th century. That’s the difference between the two sides fighting for control of our country’s future. It’s not to say that the side of good doesn’t make mistakes or at times supports things that are contrary to the good, but no objective person can act any more like the two sides are morally equivalent.

We simply cannot overestimate the impact Mrs. Kirk’s beautiful act might have. St. Paul wrote that when we do good for our enemy, we “heap coals on his head” (Romans 12:20). It’s not that we do good in order to crush our enemies, but instead that our good acts shame our enemies and lead outside observers—and even our very enemies—to recognize we are on God’s side and they need to join us. Since our battle today is primarily a spiritual battle (and when isn’t it?), our primary goal in defeating our enemies is their conversion. That’s ultimate victory. That’s what makes our true enemies—the devil and his fallen angels—completely and utterly defeated. Mrs. Kirk put the Gospel in action, and there’s no telling what might now happen.

A final point. Some people were concerned that Mrs. Kirk’s forgiveness of her husband’s killer might mean that the assassin shouldn’t face justice by the State. That somehow Christian mercy conflicts with temporal justice. That’s not how it works. Christianity has always been built on forgiveness as its central doctrine—after all, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness—yet it has always supported the viability of the death penalty (no matter what some quarters these days might say).

These two beliefs are not incompatible or contradictory ideas. The Christian person is commanded to forgive, both for his own personal salvation as well as for the hoped-for salvation of the criminal. The Christian state, however, is required to mete out justice so that the social order can be preserved in order that the proclamation of the Gospel might flourish. So Erika Kirk is right to forgive her husband’s killer, but so is the State right to execute him if it finds him guilty.

It’s quite possible our country is on the verge of a Great Awakening, one that leads many souls to Christ. Pray for our government leaders and their role, but also pray for our Church leaders that they may recognize the moment we are in and use it to bring many souls into Christ’s Church.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Power of Forgiveness appeared first on LewRockwell.

Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch.ca makes a presentation to the 20 Years Journey in Criminalizing War: What Next? conference in Kuala Lumpur commemorating the 20th anniversary of the signing of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War.

He reflects on the lack of progress toward the vision of the criminalization of war and the unfortunate move toward the criminalization of justice that has instead taken place over the last two decades.

Our thanks to James Corbett of The Corbett Report for producing this video. 

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post The Criminalization of Justice appeared first on LewRockwell.

I am writing thousands of miles above the earth, somewhere between Phoenix and home. The hum of the engines is constant, but what reverberates within me is not the altitude, not the passage over desert and plain. What reverberates within me is the quake in America’s soul I witnessed on Sunday. I was there, at the memorial for Charlie Kirk, slain only weeks ago, and it felt less like a service than a convulsion of history.

Over 200,000 people packed into an arena and the surrounding streets—a football stadium and hockey stadium side by side, overflowing—while more than 100 million watched online, the audience continuing to grow by the day as clips and testimonies ripple outward. Some of the most powerful leaders in America, perhaps the world, stood on that stage. And yet the most remarkable thing was not their presence but what was placed at the center: faith—not as an ornament, not as a perfunctory nod to heritage, but as the fabric of meaning and order itself.

Religion was not a backdrop but a foundation.

Founders’ Wisdom, Our Forgetfulness

John Adams once warned that the Constitution was “made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” George Washington, in his Farewell Address, cautioned that national morality could not be sustained apart from religious principle. These two Founders were not indulging pious flourishes. They were stating an axiom of civilization: political freedom depends on moral order, and moral order depends on reverence for a Law above ourselves.

Cecil B. DeMille put it more bluntly: “We cannot break the Ten Commandments. We can only break ourselves against them.”

We live in a culture eager to forget this. We imagine ourselves masters of reality, sovereigns of desire, curators of our own truths. Yet the evidence piles up in our families, our communities, our bodies: truth is not determined but discovered, and always in Someone beyond us. The data confirm it: health collapses where sexual anarchy reigns; sociological surveys tie stable marriages to educational outcomes, economic stability, and civic virtue; psychologists know that unbounded desire breeds despair.

What Adams called “virtue” is not private luxury; it is civic necessity.

The Landscape of Disorder

Every one of us knows disorder. Some of mine may not be yours. Yours may not be your neighbor’s. But the fact is universal. The modern temptation is to enshrine our disorders as identities, to rationalize them, to institutionalize them in law and policy, and then to demand others celebrate them. This is not liberation but slavery.

The alternative is harder but truer: to recognize desire can be bent, to cultivate self-mastery, to order passion toward truth and goodness.

This is not merely personal. Government already regulates behavior that threatens the community: fentanyl is illegal, buildings require codes, medicine demands standards. To imagine sexuality has no communal consequence is delusion. There is no such thing as a purely private moral choice.

Consider the cascading effects of fatherlessness. Unwed motherhood is not just a personal drama but an economic and civic crisis. The costs bleed into welfare budgets, classroom disruptions, crime statistics, tax burdens. Ask any teacher trying to instruct 30 children while navigating the wounds of fatherless homes: morality is never private. Disorder reverberates.

More Than a Memorial: A Revival

This is what gave yesterday’s gathering its singular force. It was not about Charlie Kirk as an individual—though his loss was grievous, his family’s pain palpable. It was about what Charlie stood for.

Throughout the stadium, thousands rose to their feet, many declaring first-time commitments to Jesus Christ. You could sense the authenticity—a hunger deeper than politics. For all the speeches, the policies debated, the headlines written, the underlying issue was painfully human: sincerity. Are we willing to live what we profess? Or will hypocrisy fuel the cynicism of those who despise us?

Even in grief, even in rage at the assassin’s bullet, the question hovered like judgment: Do our lives reflect the faith we proclaim?

The Crescendo of Forgiveness

The answer came in a way that left the air electric. Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, stood to speak. Her husband had been stolen from her only two weeks earlier. Her children had been robbed of a loving father. Her face bore grief, but her words bore something more.

She forgave.

The crowd erupted—not in political cheer but in awe. Of all the ovations that day, none was louder, none more enduring, than for forgiveness. Presidents and governors may wield power, but they cannot compel what erupted from that woman’s soul.

Her act dwarfed policy. It dwarfed tweets and podiums. It was the power of the Gospel, alive, defiant, radiant.

And then Erika pressed further: it was for souls like her husband’s alleged assassin—Tyler Robinson—that Charlie lived and labored. Not to trade barbs in ideological crossfire, but to reach the broken. To love the enemy. To call the lost home.

That was the moment when the quake of grief became a tremor of revival.

In this, the line of our cultural moment was laid bare. It is not simply Left vs. Right, Conservative vs. Progressive. It is far simpler, far deeper: Will we accept our identity in God or reject it?

One path leads to flourishing; the other to languishing.

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the question becomes inescapable: Will we remember what the Founders knew? Will we awaken from amnesia? Alexis de Tocqueville, observing the young republic, famously remarked that America’s greatness lay not in its fields or factories but in its churches, “on the lips of her people.” When America ceases to be good, he warned, it will cease to be great.

We are there. The soil is quaking beneath us.

Read the Whole Article

The post America at the Edge of Awakening: Faith, Disorder, and the Forgiveness That Could Save a Republic appeared first on LewRockwell.

Symbols are vehicles of understanding, are messengers of meaning, unfold its creativity and beauty. Language and culture incorporate symbols whole and living, or falsified, hollow and dead. A symbol has life insofar as it participates with, gives focus to, the life which stands prior, which breathes into and is ever making whole the creation and commons shared between. While not itself a person such nature stands as a reflection which rightly focused serves to witness relations and intentions, highlight beauty and meaning, truthful and whole. Here the created is enfolded within, as it is capable of mirroring and so unfolding, a reality and ‘commons’ prior, preestablished, and uncreated. If a symbol brings a commons into focus, serves as lens for relation, is capable of witnessing and affirming the lived reality of relationship, it is truthful insofar as it bridges the first and the last, images the higher within the lower, affirms a sharing correspondence. The created so comes to recognition and enters completion as itself a breathing symbol and temple, wherein value births value, face lights face, the created commons and its culture nurture and support relations whole and relationship truthful.

The rightful commons is neither a graveyard nor a trash heap, but a place of meeting, a common ground of sharing and creating, of being and becoming together. A commons is a reflection of intention and its meaning, a movement toward transparency or opacity, a lens of real value or blinding poverty. The ‘commons of becoming’ is personal and shared, creative and clearing, subsists within and without. Such commons finds affirming foundation through reflecting a prior transparency, a higher reality of truth and value, the ‘commons of being’, seed and field of enlivening participation, the one life shared between. Without leaving becoming to grasp at being, the false ‘commons’ centered upon false and non corresponding intention does need to be set aside. Being and becoming are interior to one another, as truthful language and action are informed by integral relationship, engage a shared field of symbol, wherein change becomes lens of the changeless.

‘Harmonization’ may represent a sterile conformity, or a free and fruitful entering of a commons and whole of enlivening relation, providing means for a wider and clearer scope of shared meaning and understanding. Here harmonization is with an informing fullness, is engaged through a measured and living intention, gives birth to what is inviolable, to that which has foundation and standing. True harmonization brings not confusion but clarity, is an opening wherein identity is found and not lost, wherein boundaries are lucid and not blind. ‘Identity’ finds birth and renewal within not a confused conformity, but through a freeing identification with an engaging field of meaning and value, an identification respectful of boundary while revealing of an opening truth and an enduring whole. Harmonization is mediated by this identification and its revealing commons, whose ‘nature’ is not reactive but responsive, not abstract but transparent, not impersonal but truthfully personalizing.

“Coherence’ is not mere adhesion, is not narrow attachment, but begins and builds through truthful and shared identification. Such identification is not clouded by projection, but is quickened and clarified through a shared perception of true and resonant value, a shared body and commons of meaning. Such ‘commons’ and value is not an abstraction but an immediacy, not an objectifying tool but a transparency capable of mediating and bringing together into a coherence of informing symbol and active meaning. If false identification is product of an illusory projection and distorted dependency, is cause and fruit of stunted development and depersonalization, so identification which clarifies and affirms the life giving and truthful provides ground for relations which personalize and stand vibrantly personal. Persons cohere each with another through a shared response, an opening and becoming with and together, through being members of a common home and body of transparent value.

Coherence becomes co-inherence as identification is quickened through an engaging co-intension. If co-intension speaks of a common ground of mediating value and meaning, so co-inherence refers to a knowing recognition each with and within each, of being and sharing, without confusion or separation. Only that which is whole carries these two properties, and only wholes engage in a process of clarification, moving in ever wider and deeper, ever more measured relation with other wholes, and if persons, into relationship and relationships sound and whole. As with the wholes they embody co-intension and co-inherence cannot be manufactured by intentions and forces less than whole, attempts at replication never attain the measure of consciousness and life. To the extent one identifies with and serves such falsely measured systems experience turns pained and bitter as it becomes less coherent and less than whole. Apart from coherence meaning scatters and identity fractures, perception becomes imprisoned within a reactive cage, with loss of wholeness yielding a loss of responsive creativity and actual freedom.

‘Clarification’ is one with the process of making and becoming whole, a process which becomes its own reward, is one with the recognition of value intrinsic, of an order and nature prior, of a life making present. Clarification yields true and truthful identification, an identification which does not aggrandize but sincerely humbles, which permits sharing communication and access to meaning enriching and informing. Accurate perception requires a space which is clear, of focus and intention in measured correspondence with a sky and earth of resounding value, in embrace of understanding, with eye meeting eye. If misidentification is of an undermining distortion, a shadowed fruit of projection, truthful identification informs and unfolds, permits development affirming and sound. In such manner do wholes become always and increasingly whole, realize a breathing inviolate, a word which expressively rings.

It is meaning which illumines, and whose light sustains. However not all ‘meaning’ is of full standing, being generally taken as the delimitation of a word or object’s significance and constructed use. Yet language and use are ever oriented, consciously or not, within and around a field of value, instrumental or primary, objectifying or intensifying. Instrumental meaning and value are products of specific need and use, are generally passed on through objective instruction. Primary and intensive value is transparently recognized, or not, it impacts and calls into account wholly and personally. Such recognition arises directly, while is also often quickened through the witness of the selfless example of another. Intensive meaning opens the way of co-intension, provides access to a reality substantive and whole, illumines value as its own end, and so comes to feed and sustain. ‘Sight’ here opens beyond the limited object, which together with the body entire is lifted as whole, within the deepening meaning perceived and heeded.

The post A Nature Above Nature appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have been visiting China for the last sixteen years, often multiple times a year, sometimes for extended stays. I’ve traveled through big cities, small towns, and remote villages. Over time, I’ve come to see China not through ideology or media narratives, but through direct experience—what I’ve seen, heard, and felt.

Much of what people in the West believe about China is simply untrue. Here is the China I’ve seen: safer than advertised, brutally efficient, less corrupt than it was, and far more pragmatic than our narratives allow.

It amazes me how persistently and deeply people, across the political spectrum, hold negative images of China. I suspect Washington’s propaganda has seeped into the minds not only of leftists and hawks, but even of thoughtful conservatives and libertarians, who often repeat the clichés.

The Chinese are inward-looking and focused, not expansionist or threatening. I’ve found their society more curious than censorious. Contrary to popular perception, many are open-minded, self-critical, and reasonably truthful. Yes, some stay silent when asked about Xi Jinping, the Communist Party, or Tibet, but this is often prudence rather than hostility—caution mixed with openness.

A friend asked if I was ever worried about being arrested in China. Another asked if I had been followed. I doubt it. I’ve been followed in Myanmar and arrested in Zimbabwe for taking forbidden photos. I’ve traveled with insurgents in Laos, spent time alone in Congo, and even traveled with state operatives in North Korea. I can usually tell when I’m being watched.

Once, I decided to walk around a controversial mosque in a small Muslim town in China. An hour later, while I was at a restaurant, police officers—who had failed to trace me to a hotel—arrived and asked for my passport. I declined to show it. Why should I, when I wasn’t crossing a border? The young officer politely explained that while in the US I could refuse to show ID, in China that wasn’t the rule. If I had a Chinese ID, I could show that instead. His training and composure struck me. Eventually, I showed him my passport on my phone. He took a photo and apologized for the trouble.

Ironically, in the statist world we live in, while the encounter wasn’t pleasant in absolute terms, it was no worse—perhaps even milder—than what I’ve experienced in many countries. I have had worse experiences in Canada and Germany.

In China and elsewhere in the Far East, people are careful about publicly voicing political opinions. I have, however, never heard of someone getting a knock at 2 AM, being hooded and taken away by police. More likely, if someone crosses a political line, a quiet call is made from higher up to someone with direct authority over him, to pacify the situation.

Even in North America, if you express certain political views—on race, sex, or other protected topics—you risk being canceled. Indeed, I was disinvited by a Frankfurt-based mining conference for being deemed homophobic and sexist.

While driving near the Golden Triangle—long infamous for drug smuggling—our car was once stopped by police. Despite China’s severe penalties for drug offenses, smugglers still take the risk. I suspect this is because China’s ports and infrastructure are so efficient that the risk–reward calculus shifts. When your logistics ecosystem is as frictionless as China’s, even criminals are tempted.

China has what I consider the most capitalist economy on the planet. Despite the “communist” label, it operates with astonishing efficiency. Transaction costs are minimal, making goods and services cheaper and ever higher quality. It still boggles my mind that China is not a micronation but the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. From your underwear to high-tech equipment, a large share comes from China. Yet many prefer to believe it is a paper tiger. And if they do accept its growth, they often credit it to dictatorship, which makes their claim unfalsifiable.

In much of the Third World, if I want a Western-standard lifestyle, my costs rarely fall to what purchasing power parity suggests; in fact, they often rise. China is a rare exception. I can get Western-quality services for a third of the price—or less. It’s not unusual to pay $50 for a room in a five-star hotel, with full buffet breakfast included, in a tier-3 city. Taxis cost a fraction of their Western counterparts. Banks stay open late and on weekends. The RMB has broadly tracked a basket of currencies—especially the US dollar—and banks offer better deposit rates.

From my earliest visits to China until now, the transformation has been staggering. When I first arrived in Shanghai, I searched for coffee and found only something barely drinkable. Today, not only in Shanghai but even in tier-3 cities, the range and quality of coffee easily surpass what you find in Germany, Switzerland, or France.

Likewise, I once thought Canada had the tastiest fruit. But flying over China, you see miles of greenhouses. The scale and quality of domestic agriculture have improved so quickly that I now think China produces the best fruit anywhere.

The Chinese are keen learners. They absorb new ideas quickly, adapt them, and institutionalize them without backsliding. China keeps ratcheting upward; when they see something worth adopting, it swiftly becomes part of the culture.

One image that’s hardwired in my mind is of an old woman—a janitor—climbing a pole to clean it of dust. No one was watching; she didn’t have to do it. You shouldn’t judge a society by its rich and powerful, but by how the average person behaves.

From what I see, in China, whining, feeling entitled, or holding the victim card gets you nowhere. If you don’t work, from the government’s point of view, you can go hungry. I’m all for that ethic. However, social opprobrium and family support take care of desperate situations and enforce accountability. My guess is that not having to constantly complain about their so-called entitlements makes them less distracted and happier.

Wages rise and fall with economic conditions; given today’s weak economy, don’t be surprised if the government officer you meet in the morning is the one delivering your online order in the afternoon.

Last year, I flew into Shanghai with a domestic connection. My inbound flight was delayed and, with only about twenty minutes until departure, I assumed I’d missed it. To my surprise, someone holding my name met me at the gate. He photographed my boarding pass and, in a blunt—yet efficient—Chinese way, directed me in a direction. A chain of agents had already been alerted; some ushered me ahead of the lines. From the plane door to my next flight—including immigration and customs—I made the connection. What I thought impossible happened because the system worked tightly and efficiently. And I was flying economy, not business class.

Everyday systems function; people are responsive; conveniences are real. China has become extremely safe and I see no religious extremism. If this contradicts Western media narratives, perhaps it’s time to trust direct experience over ideological filters.

I’ve visited Chinese government offices and found them unlike any I’ve seen. Their apparent goal is simple: do the job and let the citizen go quickly. There’s little time wasted on forced pleasantries. When dealing with officials—immigration or police—I want the interaction mechanical and brief, not condescending chitchat. If I can avoid saying hello, I am perfectly fine. Anti-statism is of higher value to me than politeness. In China, that’s exactly what I get.

I have not met a heavy-handed bureaucrat in China—or, for that matter, in Japan, Korea, Singapore, or Hong Kong. I have spent extended time in all these countries. I have yet to encounter the much-talked-about social credit system in China.

I asked recently why city officers no longer aggressively clear illegal street vendors the way they used to. The answer: officers have more productive duties now, and a tacit understanding has developed about where to draw the line. Among people I meet, I sense little fear of the police—one acquaintance is even suing his local police without fear of reprisal.

Pacifists imagine that turning the other cheek can win a civilizational war. In reality, governments function only to the extent people are willing to fight for them—civilization does not exist in nature; you must fight for it. Contrary to popular portrayals, I have witnessed Chinese citizens loudly confronting public officials while officials often calmly listen.

Does China enable the supply of fentanyl to the US? I don’t know. When I asked a successful Chinese businessman, he said he wouldn’t be surprised. Another said he was pretty sure they do. But in many North American cities, you can get a free shot provided by the government. So, while it’s easy to point fingers at China, Western governments fail at what’s within their control.

Yes, Xi declared himself president for life, and I found it repulsive—not only for the act itself, but for the complete absence of visible opposition. Some rivals, it is claimed, were eliminated under the pretext of corruption charges. I am tempted to believe this might have happened. Yet judging political leaders in isolation is futile.

Democracy often brings into power virtue-signalers, demagogues, and incompetents—people who hollow out institutions like termites. Yet these same governments demand China open up to democracy and allow foreign-backed protests. Washington incites pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Would it be so outrageous, then, if China responded in kind—engaging in quid pro quo—by turning a blind eye to fentanyl supplies?

What about the freedom of Hong Kong and Taiwan? My best guess is that if figures like Nancy Pelosi hadn’t unnecessarily provoked China, Hong Kong might have remained fully independent. In the months leading up to the protests, I followed them closely and became such an expert that I could predict where the next demonstration would be. At the last one I witnessed, American, Australian, and British flags were everywhere, right outside the Chinese and Hong Kong government offices. While I admired the protesters, I couldn’t imagine any government outside a few Western countries allowing such open dissent.

In my experience, the Chinese are not looking for a fight. They are desperate to improve their economic situation and secure a better future for their children. For a country of its size and military capabilities, China is among the least aggressive. It could have forcefully occupied Macau and Hong Kong long ago but did not. In fact, Portugal had offered to return Macau decades earlier, but China wanted to wait until the lease period was over.

China is also one of the most open countries in the world. Worldwide, visa policies are generally reciprocal though not always with China. Until recently, India had stopped issuing visas to Chinese tourists. China not only issues visas with ease but also gives gifts to Indian visitors. While Chinese citizens must obtain visas to visit Western nations, most Westerners can fly visa-free to China. Citizens of Third World countries may have to apply, but often leave the embassy quickly after arrival, impressed by the efficiency. My guess is that had Trump not made a fuss about tariffs, China would have taken no counteraction.

Fifteen years ago, I had what I thought was an innovative investment idea. China was booming. Macau had outpaced Las Vegas in gambling revenue, not just as a pleasure destination but as a hub for money laundering. Construction was everywhere. China had a reputation for corruption—like every other developing country—and I thought I’d found the perfect money-making machine. I believed that bribe money would continue to flood into casinos and property markets. My clients and I invested. Over the last decade, we lost more than 90% of that money.

When I ask Chinese who are critical of Xi what they think about corruption, they admit they haven’t had to pay a bribe in over a decade. Westerners usually frame the political debate as socialism versus capitalism, and miss the real point. They trot out endless comparisons between Swedish “socialism” and American “capitalism,” as if ideology alone determined prosperity. But there is another, far more decisive dimension of public life: corruption—which is beyond ideology.

Seen from 30,000 feet, the great divide is not between socialism and capitalism but between savagery and civilization.

Corruption makes development impossible. It keeps societies atomized, unstable, predatory, and forever trapped in distrust. If you want a single key to understanding a society’s trajectory, look not at its ideology but at its corruption levels.

Alcohol is inexpensive and widely available, and you can drink in public spaces. As time has passed, people drink less and less, so much so that I have never been to a buffet restaurant that does not offer free-flowing alcohol. This also tells me people are happy and far less stressed.

The Chinese I know no longer drink and drive—not even a sip. Public servants are not allowed to drink at work dinners. I still hear of expensive rice wine—Moutai—being given out as gifts to bureaucrats, then later exchanged for cash at the store.

It has become clear China is developing the rule of law rather than the rule of man.

I can hardly recall an occasion—if any—when I was cheated in China. Two recent encounters only reinforced this impression. At a small tea shop, the owner dissuaded me from buying a variety I had picked, explaining frankly that it would not serve the purpose I wanted. He knew I would never return, yet he chose honesty over profit. At a Huawei store, the agent spent considerable time explaining that the phone I intended to buy might cause trouble with the operating system and apps I planned to use. I walked away without purchasing, but with a clear reminder of how deeply integrity has begun to seep into Chinese society, and how seriously private companies now guard against even the appearance of internal corruption.

Is China mercantilist? Perhaps. Mercantilism gets a bad name because it conflicts with division of labor and free-market principles. Yet thinking strategically—imagining how to produce what you import at home for less, maximizing exports, creating trade surpluses, and investing globally—is what gives you a strategic advantage.

Some dismiss China as merely good at copying. Even if true, copying well is no small feat. If it were easy, Africa and India would be industrial powerhouses.

Ironically, conservatives and libertarians prefer governments to avoid market interference. Yet when China didn’t support its crashing property market, it faced harsh judgment. Corporations lobby governments; we recognize that, but when China curtailed its billionaires, we judged it differently.

Until the late 19th century, Christian moral frameworks ensured social opprobrium for degraded behavior. I don’t want the state morally policing society, but if religious institutions no longer provide that framework, I understand why China enforces certain standards of conduct in public spaces for celebrities. These controls don’t seem to extend into private sexual conduct. Sex toy shops and tattoo parlors are easy to find. And homosexuals seem to go about their lives unhindered, as long as they don’t promote what they do in their bedrooms on the streets.

I’m glad expecting social welfare is looked down upon. I’m glad public displays of genitals in so-called pride parades or the sexualization of children aren’t possible. I’m glad political protests are frowned upon—there is nothing harmless about public protests; they inconvenience people.

China also has among the best ethnic relations I have seen. At least at my level, urban, educated Chinese show no awareness of or concern about others’ ethnicities. Why wouldn’t this be the case when there are no affirmative action policies, and the political system is meritocratic—politicians don’t need to please groups for votes? Those Chinese who do not work for Western companies in Shanghai or other big cities fail to understand the concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

Paradoxically, from a woke Western perspective, Chinese—like Japanese and Koreans—can be very racist. It is this race realism that keeps them homogeneous, increasingly high-trust, and socially stable societies.

The West is the least racist part of the world. I wonder if once people rise to the dimension of truth-seeking and moral absolutes, and as a result grow over their tribalism, they can no longer see it in others. Or is it that it is intellectual laziness and political correctness that made the West give up on race realism?

China has avoided many of the fatal errors that have hollowed out Western societies. It does not glorify single motherhood as a lifestyle choice, nor tolerate drug addiction that corrodes entire communities. Disorder in public spaces is curtailed, not excused as “expression.” Children are not subjected to sexual confusion or exposed to strip shows under the guise of acceptance. Most crucially, China has resisted the Western obsession with diluting national identity through mass immigration. It has no desire to import waves of foreigners to serve as low-wage labor in coffee shops or fast-food chains, nor to hand out citizenship as casually as Canada or Australia.

Society and culture shouldn’t be financialized, and the free market should remain confined to the economic sphere. Compassion and tolerance in the West forgot to demand accountability from their recipients. Liberalism went off course. The free market, which should be contained within the economic sphere, has intruded on culture and society, leading to financialization and corporatization of everything.

For all its discipline and cohesion, China’s rise has not been self-generated. The foundations of its prosperity were laid with extraordinary generosity from the West—above all, the United States—without which its trajectory would look very different. Without the West, nations like Japan, China, and Korea would still be mired in primitive conditions. The spring of humanity and civilization is the West—its unmatched intellectual class, its raw liberty, mental openness, fixation on truth, individuality, and creativity.

Do the Chinese share this craving for the unknown, this near-religious vision of freedom that the West—particularly America—has embodied? I don’t think so. But such a spirit is not necessary for economic growth once science and technology have been imported.

In 2017, a young Chinese student, Shuping Yang, stood at the podium of the University of Maryland and delivered an impassioned speech contrasting the “air” of China and the United States—both in its physical clarity and in its intellectual openness. She praised America’s clean, sweet air, and the freedom to breathe in a society where even controversial ideas could be spoken aloud. The university president, himself Chinese, admitted that she had given voice to some of his own deepest feelings.

The reaction in China, however, was swift and hostile, a reflection of its thinking in tribal terms. Westerners saw this as an affirmation of illiberal China. For me, these two Chinese were a reflection of the sprouting of enlightenment among Chinese.

Since then, China has come a long way. Its cities are cleaner, its society more self-assured, and the suffocating defensiveness that once marked its response to criticism has eased. And yet, the near-religious devotion to truth-seeking—the idea that honesty and dissent are sacred obligations—remains a distinctly Western inheritance.

Think of it as zero-to-one versus one-to-n. Zero-to-one is the realm of original ideas—philosophy, foundational science, and deep creativity in human affairs—born of truth-seeking, universal morality, and reason beyond tribe, race, or religion. This is the West’s gift; without it, the world would have remained destitute and animalistic. One-to-n, by contrast, is China’s domain: once ideas exist, they refine and scale them, often surpassing the West in applied technology—perhaps because they are not “distracted” by zero-to-one.

The reason fewer Chinese seem to be intellectual rebels may lie not in their political system but elsewhere. Like Japan and Korea, China has a very high average IQ with low dispersion. This clustering fosters social harmony and a common purpose.

This also shapes institutions, which are hierarchical. Those expecting American-style equality would be shocked. Such structures suppress creativity and impose strong peer pressure. They become emotionally constipated. That’s why places from Singapore to Korea to China have corrective institutions aimed at teaching innovation and creativity. But these qualities cannot simply be taught; they are absorbed from an environment that encourages original thinking—something nurtured by growing up within a particular culture.

A friend told me his ideal position is one where he has American bosses and Chinese subordinates. American bosses give freedom to operate, respect your views, and treat you as an equal. Chinese subordinates keep their heads down and do their jobs.

China has created centers of excellence. It’s hard to believe, but today Shanghai is likely more innovative than Singapore, in my view, because it has more space, more people, and greater social dynamism. I might even suggest China offers more intellectual breathing room than any other East Asian country. Shenzhen is richer than neighboring Hong Kong. I wouldn’t be surprised if Taiwan eventually wants to join China to benefit from cultural and economic economies of scale.

But it makes no sense to compare China with the United States. A fair comparison would be with Kenya, Uganda, or India—countries that began from a similar baseline. By that measure, China has done extraordinarily well, with no true parallel in human history. It has progressed so much that people now compare it with the United States, often unfairly making it look bad.

Within East Asia, China may now be the most open-minded society—arguably even more so than Singapore. I would not be surprised if true zero-to-one innovation is already taking root. This will only accelerate as high-IQ Westerners begin moving in. Long-term residency has become easier, and as social conflicts inevitably intensify in the West, more of its best talent will likely relocate to China.

I see deep conflicts between Western culture and Islam, and even sharper ones with Hinduism. At the core, I find no real path for the West to work with the Third World—their visions clash, and their societies remain tribal and animalistic. When people from the Third World arrive in the West, they do not assimilate; if anything, they become worse. Assimilation remains a dream. In contrast, I see a genuine symbiosis between China and the United States. I wish they would work together rather than oppose each other—for in this, Washington often acts against the true interests of Americans.

China is here to stay, and its trajectory is upward. In terms of economics and military, China is the next America. There will be no Pax Sinica—the Chinese are too inward-looking. In terms of being the beacon of liberty—and hence of spirituality, creativity, and innovation, that visceral religious vision for humanity—there likely isn’t a next America.

The post China, As I’ve Seen It appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: The official story surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination has been eclipsed by the flurry of information that something bigger and more nefarious could be at play.

Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and journalist Max Blumenthal have made serious claims about powerful donors who were displeased with Kirk in the days before his death.

What do you make of all this?

Doug Casey: First, let me say that I was only marginally familiar with Charlie before this. I wasn’t his market, and he was just a name. And even now, all I really know is snippets of his speeches. I could go back and listen to his podcasts. But what he actually said or believed isn’t that important. What’s important is what people think he said or believed. The Wokesters clearly hate him.

From what I can tell, he seems like a decent, sincere guy—well-read, thoughtful, well-intentioned. But I’m automatically suspicious of anyone who’s been out trying to change the world since age eighteen.

Has anyone assisted him in his quest?

My understanding is that most of his funding, which was substantial, came from Zionists. He was always a huge fan of the Republican Party.

That’s understandable in that it’s a better alternative than the completely toxic Democratic Party. I presume he supported Israel because it’s ethnically European, has always presented itself as a US ally, and evangelical Christians believe it will play a part in immanentizing the eschaton.

All we know, however, is what we see and hear in the media. And Charlie was a media phenomenon. But, it’s said, he was changing his views towards Israel. He was feeling controlled by them and felt threatened. Some say that Israel took him out because he was going off the reservation and questioning their party line. Independent thinkers are dangerous and unwelcome in the world of realpolitik.

I don’t, however, think Tel Aviv arranged his shooting. Not because they’re loath to assassinate anyone who might be a threat; they do that promiscuously, anywhere in the world. Rather, because the risk of getting caught would be humongously out of proportion to any possible gain.

If I were writing a screenplay, I’d probably finger a radical coterie in the White House. Charlie’s death could create a martyr, energize “the base” against the Left, and justify lots of new laws.

So who done it?

At least since JFK, for the last 60 or so years, almost all of the assassinations and mass murders in the US have been indeterminate. Sure, they all have cover stories. In the case of JFK, was Oswald the killer? I’ve always doubted that. With RFK, was Sirhan Sirhan his killer? There’s a lot of doubt about that. The circumstances of MLK’s assassination were equally murky.

The numerous school shootings have been blamed on everything but prescription psychiatric drugs, which were almost universally used by the miscreants.

The 2017 mass murder of 61 and wounding 850 by “high stakes gambler” Steven Paddock in Las Vegas? I’d say the odds of any truth in that cover story are Slim and None. And Slim’s out of town.

What really happened on 9/11? It’s obvious that we have nothing like the whole story, starting with the fact that all three destroyed buildings collapsed in their own footprints, including Building 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane.

We don’t know who killed Charlie Kirk, and maybe we never will. Why weren’t his security scanning the roofs of nearby buildings? Or using a drone to do so? They haven’t found the bullet that’s supposed to have killed him. That’s odd. It couldn’t possibly have been a .30-06, as is widely alleged. Even if it wasn’t a hollow-point, the entrance wound looks quite small and neat. And initial word from the autopsy is that there’s no exit wound. It’s said he was wearing body armor that deflected the bullet. Under his T-shirt? Ridiculous.

There are many unanswered questions. I suspect most of them will remain unanswered, or the media will parrot fatuous answers that somebody fabricates, as they have with the numerous other recent instances of political or ideologically driven violence. The broad public is incapable of critical thinking. They believe what the Authorities tell them. And even if they’re suspicious, nobody wants to chance being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”

In any event, there’s a good chance Charlie will serve as a catalyst, like John Brown did in 1859. I expect that there will be other events like this.

International Man: What struck you most about the reaction to Charlie Kirk’s reported death—both from the Right, who saw it as a devastating blow, and from parts of the Left, where some responses seemed dismissive or even celebratory?

What does that tell us about where the country is right now?

Doug Casey: It’s been obvious to me for the last 10 years—maybe much more, I’ll have to check past letters—that the US is heading towards a breakup. It’s uncertain whether it will be peaceful or violent. But one thing is for sure: the Red and the Blue people increasingly hate each other. And people with very different philosophical and moral beliefs can’t, and shouldn’t, inhabit the same political entity, especially when a powerful government is bankrupt, corrupt, and untethered.

One takeaway is that you can forget calls for “unity.” They’re nonsensical and impossible. The other takeaway is that “democracy”, now more than ever, is just a charade.

I’ve always felt that modern democracy was just mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie. But at this point, so-called democracy is about grabbing as much of the trillions of dollars of spoils that the US government dispenses every year as possible—and gaining control of the apparatus of the State to oppress the other guy. Forget about the “loyal opposition.” These people hate each other.

International Man: In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Further, President Trump said he would designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.

What’s your take on these developments?

Doug Casey: Hate speech is unpleasant. I don’t like it any more than anybody else does. But it’s important that there be no regulation of what people say. Not just because the First Amendment guarantees free speech, but because if you do regulate speech, who decides what’s hateful? It’s not an objective standard. It’s an opinion. And in a highly politicized environment like today’s, that’s asking for trouble.

I’m all for people being allowed to say things that are hateful, simply because how else can you know who they are and what they believe? Trying to preclude hate speech is about as stupid as trying to enforce loving speech.

I like to know what’s going on in people’s minds, as opposed to trying to guess. Forewarned is forearmed. Suppressing so-called hate speech is like putting a lid on a pressure cooker. At some point, it will blow. The best solution to so-called hate speech is open discussion.

Pam Bondi, like most everybody in the Trump administration, has no philosophical core. She impresses me as a dim bulb who’ll do what she’s told.

Antifa is a destructive organization; its views are antithetical to the founding principles of the US. But on the other hand, the US founding principles have been disintegrating for many decades. The problem is that if Trump can designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, it gives him the right to round up the usual suspects arbitrarily. It’s a step towards martial law. Designating an organization—even if it’s full of sociopaths and criminals like Antifa—as a domestic terrorist organization opens the door to the Democrats, when they’re re-elected in 2028 (which I believe they will be), to put the shoe on the other foot. We’re on the way to a genuine police state in the US.

International Man: In the past, you’ve suggested the US could be headed toward a kind of civil conflict. Can you expand on what dynamics you see fueling that possibility today?

Doug Casey: It’s impossible to have 330 million people under the same political umbrella. Especially when the government controls 40% of the economy and has regulations for everything, it wouldn’t work even if the US were still homogeneous, as it was before the 1960s. But now it’s made up of many radically different ethnic, racial, linguistic, and religious groups who have nothing in common. Worse, strapped taxpayers are forced to carry 100 million non-producers.

Is there a solution to these problems? There are several possibilities. One is that the US amicably splits up so that birds of a feather can flock together and have their own political unit. That would mean that California, for instance, splits from the US, and its coastal regions and cities would split from the interior. That’s a theoretical, but highly unlikely, solution.

A second solution, the best one, is that 95% of the US government is dissolved, and it goes back to its original constitutional principles. A military to defend against foreign enemies. Local police to defend citizens from domestic violence. And a court system to resolve disputes without resorting to violence.

Since the government is directly or indirectly at fault for most of our problems, cutting it back 95% would be a good start. But that’s not going to happen either.

What’s most likely is something like a civil war. Either the country splits up violently, or one group violently captures the apparatus of the State and suppresses the losers. Or maybe everything somehow holds together under a police state of some description. I hate to think of that as both the “best” and most likely outcome…

International Man: Many see an economic and financial crisis on the horizon. How do you think the potential for political and cultural conflict factors into the country’s outlook?

Doug Casey: My guess is that all these simmering demographic, social, and political antagonisms will be catalyzed by a financial collapse. With all the markets at all-time highs, while the bankrupt US government takes increasing control of the economy, using the Fed to create more debt and more currency to patch up the sinking ship. A financial collapse is in the cards.

That will be accompanied by an economic collapse, with lots of bankruptcies from indebted companies, governmental entities, and individuals. We’re headed for lots of unemployment and a much lower standard of living.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Whether Charlie Kirk’s Death Could Be America’s Franz Ferdinand Moment appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump has just decided to support the little dictator/proxy who runs Ukraine on behalf of America’s “defense” industry and other such interests in the war Trump said he would end if elected.

Of course that was when he was campaigning to get elected. Of a piece – pattern recognition! – with read my lips, no new taxes – for those who recall that one.

Here’s one for the ages:

After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not?

Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like “a paper tiger.” When the people living in Moscow, and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War, the fact that it’s almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that! Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!

Feel queasy yet?

This news come on top of the news Trump itches to suppress “hate” speech, as expressed by his proxy, Attorney General Pam Bondi. She has not been fired for publicly announcing her intention – which means Trump’s intention – to sic the federal goons on those who speak “hatefully” – according to Bondi (and Trump).

Especially about our “greatest ally.” Speaking of which… if anyone dares to.

There’s also the bulldozing – and worse – of Gaza and the slaughter of tens of thousands of people who happen to be in the way of Greater Israel, a war crime Americans are now complicit in because Americans are paying for it and (most of them) insouciantly pretending isn’t happening. It doesn’t matter that they’re forced to subsidize this; what matters is that when the blowback comes it will hit them regardless.

Then there’s the Epstein Thing, which is all of a sudden no longer being talked about. It was all a “Democrat hoax,” says Trump – after campaigning that it was real and he’d release the information once elected.

Fooled ya – again!

Read the Whole Article

The post Orange Keeevvvv appeared first on LewRockwell.

Okay, the colonials may have started it, but the Brits already viewed Americans as unruly, ungrateful, and in need of a caning. Even a moderate soul such as Samuel Johnson of dictionary fame denounced them as a “race of convicts, who ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.”

Wow, Brits are known for hypocrisy, understatement, even insincerity, but this was out of character. What really happened was as follows: 2.5 million Americans were doubling in numbers every 25 years. Two-thirds of colonials owned land and were literate. Back in England one-fifth owned land and were far less literate than the colonists. According to Rick Atkinson, a typical American paid no more than sixpence a year in Crown taxes, compared with the average Englishman’s 25 shillings. The Brits were angry, starting with George III. You all know the rest, or should. The Brits pretend to have gotten over it, but have they?

Brit journalists hide their historical ignorance—as well as their dandruff—by using Google and Wikipedia in dark rooms throughout their waking hours. The latest trend is comparing Roman emperors to American presidents, probably because the former have been discredited by Hollywood movies, a great source of knowledge for Brit hacks.

“The first emperor of Rome, Augustus, is a worthy mirror to our George Washington.”

Mary Beard, however, is not a journalist but a historian of dubious note, one who regularly appears on television, but one I cannot watch even for a minute. The problem is I find her so physically unattractive, I cannot look. I know, I know, it is not her fault but mine, but such are the joys of an inclination for pretty women. I simply cannot look at her. On her latest podcast (whatever that is), Mary Beard says Elagabalus, the third-century ruler of Rome, most resembles The Donald. Joking or not, it is an obvious publicity stunt that smacks of desperation. It simply makes no sense. Elagabalus was born into a family of Syrian origins, whereas Trump is as Aryan as they come. Elagabalus became emperor at age 14, perhaps married a male charioteer, and was obsessed with large male organs. Trump is obsessive, but not for those mentioned above. Comparing the two only shows desperation on the part of the historian. A drug-addicted, mentally deficient rapper is more likely to compare Puff Daddy to Julius Caesar than Trump to Elagabalus. Enough said.

Mind you, there are so many others one could pick while playing the Roman emperor/American president game. Caligula made his horse a consul, but in reality he only threatened to do so. Trump actually brought his horrible son-in-law into the White House and continues to seek his advice on Middle East affairs, but he would be well advised to seek the wisdom of a horse instead. I can’t think of which president Nero resembled most, but Nero never fiddled while Rome burned, instead fancying himself an actor and singer. Hence our beloved Ronald Reagan would fit the bill, but I can hear Bill Buckley and others turning over and making lots of noise while doing it.

I don’t expect any Brit historian to compare Ronald Reagan to Augustus, but they had a lot in common as far as accomplishments are concerned. Mark Antony was as tragic a hero as I can think of, primarily because of his obsession with female noses. Cleopatra had a long but beautiful nose, so the Romans couldn’t get enough. He left Actium for a last assignation with Cleo, or so I like to think. The closest to him as American presidents go would be—may the Roman gods forgive me for this—George W. Bush. He also lost the war down south, but instead called it mission accomplished and a victory. Neither Mark nor W. should have engaged the enemy, but both were certain of victory before reality set in. Mark Antony, as noble as they come, took the patrician way out. George W., as stupid as it is possible to be while also having been elected president, turned to painting flowers instead.

The first emperor of Rome, Augustus, is a worthy mirror to our George Washington. Augustus was the architect of the Pax Romana, while our George was the architect of a nation and an idea that clearly annoys perfidious Albion. Back in AD 198 Caracalla bestowed Roman citizenship upon every free man he encountered, very much like Biden letting in 12 million or so in these United States. The difference being that Caracalla loved baths and bathing, whereas Biden never knew when he was taking a bath or being given one.

My hero and favorite fighting general in the War of Independence was Benedict Arnold. He was badly treated throughout by his fellow Americans, so he switched. The Brits treated him almost as bad. I cannot for the life of me think of an equivalent to Benedict in modern times. Perhaps George Patton. Eisenhower was always on his case, and the egregiously pompous and reluctant-to-fight Brit Montgomery too. I suppose Benedict and George could be twinned. All I know is my father named a tanker after George Patton back in the early ’50s, and I got to shake his son’s hand in Vietnam. I never met Benedict Arnold, and old Dad never named a ship after him.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post The Roman Emperor/American President Game appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his latest post to TRUTH SOCIAL President Donald Trump claims that with more dollars, euros and missiles, Ukraine could still regain all its lost territory. President Trump’s statement is a mixture of sentiment and self-delusion, not strategy. Few wars in modern times have been wrapped in so many illusions as this one.

The number of Ukrainian Soldiers killed in action (KIA) exceed 1.7. million.

The numbers of wounded in action (WIA) are unknown, but anecdotal evidence suggests most of the WIA are seriously disabled.

The ongoing mobilization of Ukrainian men in their late fifties and early sixties is not evidence for resilience but of exhaustion. Without constant flows of dollars and euros the Ukrainian State and Society would collapse in a few days.

Very soon, the globalist ruling class in Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin will raise the question, “Who lost Ukraine,” as though it was ever theirs to lose.

However, this time, Americans will ask how Washington insiders, Lobbyists, and the sprawling military-industrial-congressional complex persuaded President Trump to imitate President Biden; to prolong, even widen the war in Ukraine instead of ending it?

Contrary to popular belief in the West, Russia was never a wobbling power held together by propaganda. Measured in purchasing power, the war has helped Russia to become the world’s fourth-largest economy.

Russian factories are humming night and day, producing shells, missiles, and drones at rates the West cannot match.

Not only is the Russian economy thriving, sanctions meant to break its economy have instead pushed global trade eastward and cemented Moscow’s ties with Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Instead of a paper tiger, Russia looks more like an impregnable fortress.

Meanwhile, de-dollarization is advancing rapidly. For the first time in 30 years, foreign central bank gold reserves exceed US treasuries.

The dollar’s share of global reserves has already dropped from 72 percent in 2000 to about 58 percent in 2024 according to the International Monetary Fund. In economic terms, Americans are on the losing side in this conflict.

The fiscal situation in Britain, France and Germany is equally precarious, with spending levels and deficit trajectories that are unsustainable.

For the globalist leaders in Europe who opened their countries’ borders in 2015 to hostile invasion and de-industrialized their countries to follow Washington into the war against Russia the cost is even higher.

Their rendezvous with unrest and bankruptcy will come soon, long before Washington reaches the same destination.

Unfortunately, Trump’s words confirm the truth that the war in Ukraine really is Washington’s and NATO’s war against Russia.

The stark truth makes it much harder for Moscow to compromise with the West. More important, the truth justifies wider Russian military mobilization and deepening ties with Beijing, New Delhi, and Tehran.

Europe’s combination of acute military weakness and financial emergency makes the breakdown of Washington’s Atlantic Alliance inescapable.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban argues that Brussels should pursue a European Union–Russia security pact instead of aligning with Washington.

Orban is correct. If President Trump is content send money, but sit out the war for the duration, the Europeans must act.

The longer President Trump indulges the Zelenskiy Regime and its absurd demands for the restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders, the greater will be the damage to US and European Security.

Reprinted with permission from X.

The post War, Debt, and Delusion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Two days ago, while I was moving this website, President Donald Trump made some rather ridiculous comment (emphasis added):

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump – Sep 23, 2025, 18:55 utc

After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not? Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like “a paper tiger.” When the people living in Moscow, and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War, the fact that it’s almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that! Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Some people claimed that this uttering showed that Trump had changed his mind over Ukraine.

It was far from that. Trump was in fact mocking the delusional assessments General Keith Kellogg and General Dan Caine had given him:

Special Presidential Envoy Keith Kellogg on Monday said he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently advised President Trump that Russia is losing its war on Ukraine — as Moscow has seen more than 1 million casualties while taking less than 1% of Ukrainian territory since November 2022.
…
“If Putin thinks Russia is winning, his definition of winning and my definition of winning are absolutely two different things,” Kellogg said. “If he was winning, he’d be in Kyiv. If he’s winning, he’d be west of the Dnipro River. If he was winning, he’d be on Odessa. If he was winning, he would have changed the government.

“Russia is, in fact, losing this war,” he added.
…
The two military experts gave their assessment in response to Trump’s then-prodding as to whether Putin’s grandstanding of supposed success in Ukraine was true, Kellogg said, giving a rare glimpse into private discussions at the White House.
…
“I responded quite forcefully, and I finally said, ‘Mr. President, don’t just listen to me. Your chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine, is outside. He’s out in the hall, bring him in and ask him that question. He’s your senior, he’s your principal military adviser,’” Kellogg said.

“And he did, and Dan said the same thing. He went, ‘Nope, not winning.’”

When Trump repeated the implausible propaganda claims Kellogg had made it was pure sarcasm. Trump knows that “seeking a decisive Russian defeat is a virtually impossible goal that presents serious and unwarranted risks“.

He used the sarcasm to wash his hand over further action about Ukraine. It is also relieving him of pressure to continue talks with Russia.

It took two days for the New York Times to acknowledge this (archived):

But scratch the surface, and a deeper desire seemed buried in Mr. Trump’s reversal of position during the U.N. meetings in New York this week. Mr. Trump appears to want to wash his hands of the Ukraine conflict, after having no success bringing President Vladimir V. Putin to the negotiating table, and a dwindling chance of acting as mediator between the two warring parties.

Trump’s statement was not, as the NY Times claims, a “reversal of position”. At the essence he is saying that he will continue to sell weapons to Europe but that is all that he is going to do – at least openly. There will be no new U.S. aid for Ukraine and no U.S. forces riding to its rescue.

Behind the scene the U.S. will of course do its best to stay in control of the conflict. NATO, under full U.S. control, will continue to push the European dimwits towards a ever deeper involvement in the war. U.S. intelligence will continue to help Ukraine to target Russian troops and maybe even targets in Russia (machine translation):

US President Donald Trump has received information about a” planned offensive ” by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which will require intelligence from the United States.

This is reported by the American business newspaper The Wall Street Journal.

At the same time, the publication notes that, despite the change in rhetoric regarding Russia, the American president still refuses to allow strikes with his country’s weapons deep into the territory of the Russian Federation.

Nothing is new in this policy. The U.S., under Trump, had always planned to drop the responsibility and burden of the war in Ukraine, which it had instigate, onto Europe. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had announced that plan on February 12 during a military summit in Bruxelles:

Hegseth also told Nato’s European members that they would need to provide the lion’s share of future aid for Kyiv, warning that Washington “will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship” with its allies.

“Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of Nato,” Hegseth said. “Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.”

Trump’s “reversal of position” isn’t one. His announcement is a continuation of his policy. In today’s Washington Post a ‘senior White House official’ confirms as much (archived):

President Donald Trump’s furious rhetoric toward Russia is “a negotiating tactic” intended to pressure the Kremlin, a senior White House official said Wednesday, a day after the president stunned global policymakers and delighted Ukrainian leaders by embracing Kyiv’s ambitions for a decisive defeat of Russia.
…
Trump was not signaling a major shift in U.S. policy toward Kyiv during a day at the U.N. General Assembly in which he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the official said, ..

Russia seems to have understood Trump’s uttering better than Western journalists did. The former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev commented the events in New York in his usual manner:

And Trump? Once again he slipped into an alternative reality, reciting a fresh set of political incantations about “Russia’s weakness.”

After meeting with the clowns from Kiev and Paris, he posted a flamboyant message: final victory for Kiev, a return to old borders, Russia’s collapsing war economy, gas lines, and the image of a “paper tiger.”

In that reality everything is different: Kiev is winning, Russia is torn to pieces, and Bandera’s Ukraine is thriving on its own resources. In that same fantasy, Trump’s predecessors Obama and Biden still live happily ever after.

But Trump is not like them. No doubt—he’ll be back. He always comes back. In a few days he’ll probably propose that the green pianist sign a capitulation. Or maybe fly to Mars with his pardoned Musk. Or come up with something else “historic” to claim a Nobel Prize.

The key, after all, is to keep drastically changing your position on every major issue. That’s what makes for “successful” governance through social media.

And, as they say—thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Why Trump’s Alleged Shift on Ukraine Isn’t One appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s Truth on Russia and Ukraine spread like a California wildfire across social media in the last 24 hours. Supporters of Ukraine were elated… at least initially. I got a nice shout out today from my friend, Alexander Mercouris, who agreed with my assessment that Trump’s Ukraine/Russia Truth was actually a piece of sophisticated sarcasm. But Alexander did a better job than me in explaining the nature of this sarcasm. So, back at you Alexander. Brother Mercouris explained that Trump, rather than debate Kellogg and the neocons who wanted to push the Russia-is-losing narrative, essentially said to them, “You’re right,” and then took that claim to a logical conclusion. Rather than argue with Kellogg and the neocons he said:

Ok, you’re right. Since Ukraine is winning and Russia is losing, why the hell does the US have to do anything more? Sure, we’ll sell NATO all the weapons we want (assuming we can actually make them) and they can bankrupt themselves giving them to Ukraine while America makes some sorely needed cash. Anyway, since Russia’s economy is collapsing, the war will end, Ukraine will win and we don’t have to do another damn thing.

The ball is now in the hands of Ukraine, NATO and the neocons. Trump is not going to do anything new in terms of military or diplomatic action. He is in essence, hoisting them on their own petard. Kellogg is now on the record, having told Trump that Ukraine is winning and Russia is losing, and will have — as Ricky Ricardo used to say — some splaining to do when the Ukrainian front crumbles and Russia reaches the Dnieper River. And how will he explain why the Russian economy is doing better by December than the US economy? He promised Trump a collapse.

The war will grind on and the leading NATO countries in Europe will grow more panicked as the reality of Ukraine’s defeat becomes more apparent.

What we ought to be paying attention to is the dramatic buildup of US military assets off the coast of Venezuela. This mirrors the kind of activity we saw after the 13 June attack on Iran by Israel, as the United States deployed naval and air assets to the region in preparation for the US attack on 24 June. As of September 2025, the United States has deployed a substantial naval and military force off the coast of Venezuela in the southern Caribbean. The deployment includes:

Navy Ships:
• Guided-missile destroyers: USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, USS Sampson, USS Stockdale
• Missile cruiser: USS Lake Erie
• Littoral combat ship: USS Minneapolis-Saint Paul
• Amphibious ships: USS Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio (comprising the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group)
• Fast-attack submarine: USS Newport News

Military Units:
• Marine Expeditionary Unit: 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, with approximately 4,500 personnel, including 2,200 Marines and sailors, deployed aboard the amphibious ships
• Air assets: F-35B fighter jets, MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft
• Special Operations Forces: Reported secret deployments for targeted strikes and commando operations in support of anti-cartel missions

I cannot rule out that this show of military force is part of an intelligence operation — i.e., use the saber rattling as leverage over key members of the Venezuelan military to persuade them to launch a US-backed coup and eliminate President Maduro. But Maduro is not alone… He has the backing of Russia, China and Iran by virtue of his membership in BRICS.

Maduro and Venezuela have more than verbal assurances from Russia. Venezuela concluded a significant defense and strategic cooperation agreement with Russia in mid-September 2025, when the Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved a Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Treaty with Russia. This agreement is designed to deepen existing bilateral ties in defense, energy, technology, and includes provisions for regular high-level political dialogue and oversight commissions for implementation.

Key features of the agreement:

• The treaty expands Venezuela’s military cooperation with Russia, building on the already substantial relationship, such as domestic manufacturing of AK-103 rifles and joint defense technology initiatives.
• Venezuelan cadets are training in Russia in advanced military specialties, including drone technology and electronic warfare.
• The agreement was advanced in direct response to the recent deployment of US warships, submarines, and fighter jets in the Caribbean, which Venezuela views as a threat to its sovereignty.
• The pact, which still requires a final parliamentary vote for formal ratification, is explicitly framed by Venezuelan officials as part of their rejection of “hegemonic” US influence and an effort to build a multipolar world order in partnership with Russia.
• Earlier this year, Presidents Maduro and Putin signed a 10-year strategic alliance, which lays the foundation for this further-deepened cooperation and also encompasses arms control, energy sector collaboration, and joint efforts to bypass sanctions.

Putin is sending Trump a not-so-subtle reminder that Russia still has some global reach.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Ignore Ukraine (Trump Is), Pay Attention to Venezuela appeared first on LewRockwell.

John Helmer and I agree that President Trump has lost control over foreign policy to his advisors. 

That Trump has lost control is clear from Trump’s reference to Russia as a “paper tiger” and his statement that he believes that Kiev is “in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back and might be able “to go further,”  suggesting invasion of Russia, if the EU and NATO continue to support Ukraine.  Russia, Trump says, is in “BIG economic trouble” and that “this is the time for Ukraine to act.” 

This is the neoconservative line, and Trump’s advisers have used it to  lasso Trump.  The peaceful solution seems to be off the table.

Kremlin spokesman Peskov indicates that Russia continues to prefer delusion to reality by announcing that Moscow remains open to seeking a peaceful resolution to the hostilities.  While Trump mocks Russia, Peskov stresses that Putin “highly values” Trump’s efforts to mediate the Ukraine conflict and describes the Trump-Putin relationship as “warm.”  

If Trump’s advice to Ukraine that it is time to win all of Ukraine back from paper tiger Russia, and perhaps invade Russia as well,  is evidence of a warm relationship with Putin, what would be the words that describe a cold or hostile relationship?

President Trump echos my expressed opinion since early 2022 of the thoughtless, indeed, mindless–Trump calls it “aimless”– way Putin has mismanaged the conflict with Ukraine.  By refusing to see the obvious–that the conflict was a real war that Russia needed to quickly win before the West got deeply involved and widened the war–Putin created the impression in the West that Russia was either unwilling or unable to fight.  One consequence is that President Trump dismisses Russia as a military power:

“With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, [recovering] the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not? Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win.”

Trump’s comments reflect the opinion of his special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who recently claimed the US could “kick Russia’s ass” and insisted Ukraine could win the war despite Russia’s continued gains in eastern Ukraine and its clear manpower advantage.

Some analysts suspect that Putin has been bamboozled by his pro-Western central bank director who convinced him that the Russian economy is not capable of fighting a real war.  Regardless, it is clear from Trump and Kellogg’s attitudes and the plots of the neoconservatives that Washington does not take Russia seriously as a military power. The strategic blunder Putin has made most likely leads to nuclear war. See this.

Trump again showed that the US military/security complex has already taken over US foreign policy.  There is no more  Trump talk of  normalizing relations with Russia.  Instead, there is Trump talk of shooting down Russian aircraft.

Estonia, little doubt bribed by the Zionist neoconservatives, falsely claims that Russian aircraft entered their air space.  Asked about this at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York City on September 23,  President Trump said that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft that enter their airspace.

So, here is the “peace president” urging two-bit countries that cannot fight their way out of a wet paperbag to, in effect, declare war on Russia.  Of course, Putin being averse to war, might pretend it didn’t happen, as is his wont. There seems to be no end that Putin won’t go to in order to avoid the fact that he is at war with the Western world.  He has said that the West is at war with Russia a time or two, but he has never acted as if he believed it.

There is no evidence that Putin does.  Putin allowed Israel to trick Syrian air defenses repelling an Israeli attack to  shoot down a Russian aircraft without doing anything about it, so Estonia and the West can expect likewise. They can shoot down all the Russian aircraft they wish, and Putin will say it didn’t happen, just as he said the US/Ukrainian attack on Russia’s strategic bombing forces was merely an act of  terrorism, not an act of war.

In 2015 Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft without consequences.  Putin almost never holds any attack on Russia accountable.  He even allowed his incompetent central bank director to hand over $300 billion to the West without firing her.  Putin and his foreign minister, Lavrov, keep relying on Western good will which simply does not exist.  Countries that stand aside of Israel’s genocide of Palestine, as Russia also does, have no concept of good will.

Russia dispute’s Estonia’s claim, but facts don’t matter in the West.  What matters are agendas and their success.  The agenda is to do in Russia, and everything Putin does helps to do in Russia.

My concern is that at some point even Putin will fight, and that is when we get nuclear war.

The post Is the Kremlin Deluding Itself Into WW III? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

LifeSite

The post ‘China bans unauthorized online catechesis, preaching, and livestreaming of Masses appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Maureen McKerracher.

The post Something SERIOUS Is About to Hit America – Pope Leo XIV appeared first on LewRockwell.

Johnny Kramer wrote:

Update: a 2017 tweet from Tylenol has resurfaced, advising pregnant women not to take its products:

 The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

Watch: Democrats Protest Trump By Chugging Tylenol | ZeroHedge

I don’t think that Trump is diabolical enough to have done this specifically to provoke this reaction, but it’s hilarious to imagine that he is. I could see this joke sign becoming a real one in the near future.

The post Democrats Protest Trump By Chugging Tylenol appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

CNBC News

The post Former FBI Director James Comey expected to be indicted soon: MSNBC appeared first on LewRockwell.

Welcome back to Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu. In today’s episode, Tom sits down with Mike Benz for a conversation that will fundamentally reshape the way you see the machinery behind global influence, media, and soft power. If you’ve always assumed that NGOs and international aid organizations are purely philanthropic, prepare to have your mind blown. Mike Benz peels back the curtain on how NGOs, government agencies, hedge funds, and massive corporate interests intersect and often operate as extensions of intelligence work, narrative control, and economic opportunism on a global scale.

From the evolution of media manipulation since the days of the printing press to the explosion of AI-powered censorship and narrative shaping, Mike explains the historical playbook and the modern tactics that shape elections, revolutions, and public sentiment. Tom and Mike dig deeply into headline-grabbing examples, like the Ukraine conflict, U.S. foreign policy, and even the true impact of Elon Musk’s takeover of X (formerly Twitter) on the global censorship apparatus.

This episode doesn’t shy away from tough questions—how do the interests of global elites and hedge funds dictate policy? Are uprisings and political polarization just collateral damage of soft power warfare? And can transparency and public oversight reign in institutions that have grown more secretive than the CIA?

Get ready for a riveting, eye-opening discussion that will challenge everything you thought you knew about media, power, and the forces shaping our world today.

00:00 – “Intro”

01:00 – “How the U.S. Buys Global Influence—One Newsroom at a Time”

15:54 – “Corporations Are Writing U.S. Foreign Policy”

26:55 – “Coups or Revolutions? Who’s Really Pulling the Strings”

39:14 – “Protests Are Being Engineered—Here’s How”

44:39 – “Teachers Union + Ukraine = WTF?”

58:25 – “Elon Musk Just Shattered the Censorship Machine”

01:05:32 – “Citizen Journalists Are Beating the Media—Badly”

01:24:03 – “Wall Street’s Quiet Takeover of U.S. Foreign Policy”

01:28:18 – “Social Media Is Powering a Global Uprising”

01:35:52 – “Fake Allies: The Hidden Politics You’re Not Supposed to See”

01:47:14 – “Ukraine: The Shocking Alliance of NGOs and Foreign Fighters”

01:58:41 – “The CIA Has a Shadow Playbook—And No Oversight”

The post The Leaked Playbook for Silencing America | Mike Benz Impact Theory w/ Tom Bilyeu appeared first on LewRockwell.