Lew Rockwell Institute

Trump’s original plan was to quickly get rid of foreign wars in order to focus on his presidential campaign’s domestic agenda to Make America Great Again.

Trump has discovered that Democrat “judges” and some RINO ones can block and distract him from removing illegal aliens who have no right to remain in the US, and from exercising his legitimate powers as president to reform the corrupt and ideological US civil service.  The civil service is responsible to the executive branch, not to the judiciary, but the judiciary, always seeking to expand its power, is seeking to establish control over the Office of the President.

On the domestic front the frustrations and delays of an over-reaching judicial system have shifted Trump’s focus abroad as an alternative way of Making America Great Again.

In a recent press conference with Genocide King Netanyahu, President Trump declared America’s possession of Gaza.  Questioned by media, Netanyahu seemed to agree, at least for the sake of avoiding conflict with Israel’s American sponsor.

Trump has begun to describe a new Middle East.  It is no longer one that Washington was creating for Greater Israel.  Israel  had Washington destroy  opposing Arab countries–Iraq, Libya, and Syria–disguised as a “war on terror.”  The New Middle East is to be Washington’s colonial empire, in which Washington achieves control over oil flows in a new way.

Unlike the old colonialism in which the British and French exploited the region, sending the profits home, Trump is offering Saudi Arabia, the last standing Arab country, a junior partnership. The junior partnership is also being offered to the Iranians. The Saudias and Iranians are tempted to accept junior partnerships as it saves them from US/Israeli attacks.

Gaza, Trump suggests, will be the highly developed anchor for making all of the Middle East rich.  The new American colonialism, unlike the old, is a profit-sharing empire.  And it puts an end to Israeli/Arab wars.

It is difficult not to see this as a brilliant settlement.  But the world never expected anything of this sort.  Perhaps the American Ruling Establishment sat down with Trump and explained the situation to him.

In place of the American neoconservative unipolar world of American hegemony there will be the division of the world between the three powers–Washington, Russia, and China.  Will the Zionist neoconservative American policymakers accept this or will they continue their pursuit of hegemony?

The path ahead is not clear.  President Putin is not interested in merely a negotiated end of the conflict in Ukraine.  Putin wants a Great Power Agreement that ends the West’s conflict with Russia.  Putin’s agenda goes far beyond merely ending the conflict with Ukraine.

Can Trump and Putin renew the effort of Reagan and Gorbachev and end the revival of the Cold War that the neoconservatives launched?

If not, war will be upon us.

The post On the Trump Front — a Change in the Agenda? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Okay, sports fans, here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth: The year was 1957 or 1958 or perhaps even later. Those were the days of starched shirts, good manners, white rather than yellow tennis balls, and wooden rackets. The tournament was in New York City, and I was playing against Yale No. 1 Richard Raskind. He had a big left-handed serve that he used to come up to the net with, and an even bigger left-handed forehand. The match was on a fast cement court that favored his aggressive net play. I remember thinking that Raskind would have been putty in my hands were we playing on slow European clay, my best surface. Dick Raskind won that day, and as we shook hands at the net he looked the depressed loser. I remember almost commenting on that but did not. I found him unfriendly, almost unpleasant. Many years later I think I understood why. Raskind was obviously suffering from what today is known as “gender dysphoria,” although that particular definition did not exist back then.

Many years later Raskind surfaced yet again on the tennis tour, this time playing as a woman called Renée Richards. My first thought back then was that I had lost to a female. Well, not quite, but you know what I mean. While on tour for many years my favorite hitting partner was Althea Gibson, the first black woman to win Wimbledon, in 1957. Althea and I obviously played many sets against each other, and we were about even. But she was No. 1 in the world, whereas I was way down the rankings back in those halcyon pseudo-amateur days. Which brings me to the point I wish to make: Even in a nonviolent sport like tennis, men have an enormous advantage—speed, strength, endurance, you name it, we’ve got it.

“Many years later Raskind surfaced yet again on the tennis tour, this time playing as a woman called Renée Richards.”

By the time Raskind declared himself a female he was already fending off Father Time. As a woman, Renée Richards won a tournament but became far better known for transitioning than hitting a tennis ball. He/she was also a very good ophthalmologist and is still with us at 90. I turned her transition into a joke by telling all my tennis buddies that I had lost to a woman while at my peak.

This was long ago, and now, finally, the U.S. has acknowledged the truth: Sex change treatment endangers children. The Department of Health and Human Services issued the world’s most comprehensive report on the topic—something I knew from day one, and I am someone who has trouble putting on a Band-Aid. Over in that crowded rainy place called Britain, transgender women will be barred from playing for women’s soccer teams after the Brit Supreme Court ruled that Britain’s equality laws were based on biological sex and that trans women did not fall within the legal definition of women. Again, I could have told them this, and I don’t know how to read a legal brief about a parking ticket.

The irony is that I don’t even know what these terms are—transgender, agender, nonbinary—but what I do know is what nonsense is. Nonsense is wasting our precious and finite energies on trivial issues such as “What is a woman?” Maybe we should allow this issue to collapse under its own absurdity. This nonsense, as few of us call it, counts a lot only where sport is concerned. Let’s begin with women entering men’s sporting competitions: There are none and never will be. Enough said. The men entering women’s competitions are cheaters when posing as women. The entire fiasco is based on lies and opportunistic cheaters. You cannot change sex.

So, how should a parent feel seeing their daughter get knocked out almost immediately in an Olympic boxing competition by a trans woman who hits like the proverbial mule and looks very much a man? Or watching their daughter left half a swimming pool behind by someone who until recently was swimming for the men’s team? I know what I would do. I would enter the ring and try to stop the match. Or jump into the pool and get in the way of the cheater. But the Olympic Committee is as cowardly as they come, as are universities, with coaches too scared of the trans lobby to throw the cheaters out and keep the girls competing against girls.

Perhaps now these cowards who have allowed these outrages to take place will finally react and ban the cheaters. But the incessantly complaining, self-pitying trans lobby is well funded and supported by Hollywood types like that awful trio of Eddie Redmayne, Emma Watson, and Daniel Radcliffe, all three trying to cash in while advancing injustice against female athletes. But leave it to The New York Times to devote a very long and incredibly boring article on the trials and tribulations of a San Jose State University volleyball player, a trans, and how she was eventually “outed” as an ex-man by some magazine.

Never mind. Trans women should compete against other trans women in sport, but not biological women. In the meantime, I have joined the victims of trans women competing in women’s sport by outing myself as having lost to Renée Richards. I lost to Dick Raskind, but unknown enemies say I lost to Renée.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Formerly Dick appeared first on LewRockwell.

The concept of an impending apocalypse has been a source of fascination, fear, and speculation throughout human history. From ancient texts to modern science fiction, the notion that our civilization could come to an end has sparked countless theories and warnings. While some may dismiss these ideas as mere fantasy or superstition, there are observable trends and events that suggest the potential for catastrophic changes in our world. In this article, we will explore eight warning signs that could indicate an impending apocalypse.

1. Environmental Degradation

One of the most pressing indicators of an impending apocalypse is the rapid degradation of our environment. Climate change, deforestation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity are all symptoms of a planet in distress.

The rise in global temperatures, largely attributed to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and industrial practices, has led to more extreme weather events—hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and flooding are becoming increasingly common. The accelerating melting of polar ice caps poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide. As ecosystems collapse and species go extinct at an unprecedented rate, the foundational elements that sustain life on Earth are unraveling.

This degradation does not only impact natural systems; it also poses significant risks to food security, water supply, and human health. As resources become scarcer and competition for them intensifies, social unrest and conflict may follow—potentially setting the stage for a more significant apocalyptic scenario.

2. Geopolitical Tensions

In an increasingly interconnected world, geopolitical tensions can escalate into larger conflicts with global ramifications. The rise of nationalism, authoritarianism, and territorial disputes has created a volatile international landscape. The possibility of nuclear confrontation remains a critical concern; nations possessing such weapons often find themselves in standoffs that could quickly spiral out of control.

Recent events highlight how fragile peace can be in certain regions. Disputes over resources like water and energy can inflame existing rivalries between nations, leading to potential warfare that could destabilize entire regions and lead to widespread chaos. Furthermore, cyber warfare has emerged as a new battlefield where digital attacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, sowing discord and fear among populations.

The combination of economic instability—often exacerbated by pandemics or climate disasters—can create perfect conditions for civil unrest. History has shown us that desperate times can lead to desperate measures: when people feel cornered or threatened, they may resort to extreme actions that could lead to societal collapse.

3. Economic Instability

Economic systems are inherently complex and interconnected; when one piece falters, the repercussions can be felt globally. Warning signs such as rising debt levels, stock market volatility, and increasing income inequality often precede major economic downturns.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how quickly economies can unravel due to unforeseen circumstances. Supply chain disruptions led to shortages of essential goods while unemployment rates soared in many countries. These factors combined with inflation have raised concerns about economic stability as governments struggle to provide support to their citizens.

As more people fall into poverty or see their standard of living decline, social cohesion may erode. Economic desperation can lead individuals or groups to act irrationally or violently in pursuit of survival. In a worst-case scenario, prolonged economic instability could trigger revolutions or regime changes—events that may serve as precursors to larger apocalyptic scenarios.

4. Pandemics and Global Health Crises

The world has witnessed how quickly a virus can spread across borders and disrupt daily life. The COVID-19 pandemic was a stark reminder of this reality—not only did it claim millions of lives but it also exposed weaknesses in global health systems.

As human populations continue to encroach upon wildlife habitats through urbanization and agriculture, the potential for zoonotic diseases (those transmitted from animals to humans) increases dramatically. Climate change also plays a role by shifting habitats and influencing disease patterns.

Emerging infectious diseases pose not only health risks but also social and economic challenges. Overwhelmed healthcare systems may struggle to cope with outbreaks; misinformation can spread rapidly online, leading communities into panic or denial rather than informed action. If unchecked, these global health crises could become more severe over time—potentially contributing to societal breakdowns reminiscent of apocalyptic narratives.

5. Technological Dependence

Our growing reliance on technology presents both remarkable advancements and substantial vulnerabilities. As societies become increasingly digitalized—from smart cities powered by AI algorithms to decentralized finance—the risks associated with technological failures become paramount.

Cybersecurity threats can undermine infrastructures essential for day-to-day life—from power grids to healthcare systems. A coordinated cyberattack could cripple vital services within hours; ransomware attacks have already demonstrated their capacity to disrupt businesses across various sectors.

Moreover, technological advancements bring ethical dilemmas that society struggles to address—questions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), surveillance states, data privacy rights—creating divisions among populations struggling with these uncertainties. If mishandled or mismanaged, technology might contribute to more significant societal schisms or even lead us down dystopian paths akin to science fiction depictions of apocalypse scenarios.

6. Natural Disasters

The frequency and intensity of natural disasters have increased substantially over recent decades—a trend often linked back again towards climate change influences like rising sea levels or changing weather patterns leading towards more extreme events). Earthquakes , tsunamis , hurricanes , floods , wildfires all pose threats capable enough if left unchecked or poorly managed resulting into devastating consequences especially for vulnerable communities unprepared for such calamities hitting them unexpectedly .

Natural disasters not only inflict immediate destruction but also create long-term challenges—displaced populations struggle with access displacement issues; humanitarian aid becomes necessary yet often insufficient given lack capacity/resources . When multiple disasters strike simultaneously (as seen recently during hurricane seasons), overwhelmed responders may contribute towards exacerbating crises turning normalcy upside-down leaving behind chaos instead .

7. Resource Scarcity

Human civilizations have thrived due largely success utilizing available resources . However unsustainable consumption practices coupled increased population pressure threaten disrupt traditional resource management methods leading potential shortages essential food , clean water , energy supplies needed sustain daily life .

Water scarcity is currently emerging as one pressing issue affecting millions people worldwide . In many regions groundwater supplies depleting due over-extraction coupled climate change-induced droughts resulting dire circumstances requiring urgent interventions if we hope avert conflicts arise from competition limited resources .

Food production faces similar challenges ; yield decreases associated unpredictable weather patterns coupled growing demand require innovative solutions beyond current agricultural framework . As resource scarcity escalates – whether through natural disasters , systemic failures – societies face heightened tensions marked desperation when people fight limited supplies eventually leading breakdown order altogether .

8. Societal Division

Lastly another critical sign indicating impending apocalypse lies within societal divisions arising from ideological polarization . With social media platforms amplifying extreme views fostering hostile environments becoming increasingly common phenomenon seen all around the globe today .

Erosion trust institutions erodes ability communities work together solve collective problems whether climate change pandemics crime rates issues impacting society across board – divisions only deepen resulting gridlock progress making utopian visions seem further away than ever before .

When empathy wanes conflict arises individuals resort turn against each other rather than seeking collaborative solutions foster resilience required navigate potential apocalyptic realities ahead .

Conclusion

While predicting an apocalypse is fraught with uncertainty , recognizing these warning signs can help us prepare mitigate possible outcomes should worst-case scenarios unfold . Environmental degradation , geopolitical tensions , economic instability , pandemics technological dependence natural disasters resource scarcity societal division all interlinked creating web vulnerability facing humanity today .

Our best chance at survival lies within our willingness confront these issues holistically rather than remaining complacent believing everything remain status quo forever . By working together across borders towards sustainable practices equitable policies emphasizing empathy compassion humanity’s better nature—we cultivate resilience needed navigate uncertain times ahead while striving build brighter future generations yet come.

This article was originally published on MadgeWaggy.blogspot.com.

The post Warning Signs of an Impending Apocalypse to Watch for appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this article, I write about the trend of Celebrity Priests. So, I should define terms before continuing. When I refer to a Celebrity Priest, I do not mean a priest who happens to be well-known because of his virtues. Instead, I am referring to a trend of famous priests who are well-known not just because they have something good to say but because they are marketable as influencers and media figures because of good looks, youthfulness, and other attributes that facilitate viral media content.

Like most moderns, I spend more time than I should scrolling through various social media. For me, that means looking for videos to watch or listen to on YouTube and things to read on Twitter—I still can’t naturally call it . Now, I don’t want to go to Hell, so I stay away from TikTok and other more absurdly flashy and epilepsy-inducing social platforms. Also, I am under the age of 40 and not a woman, so I don’t use Facebook.

Much of what I watch or read has to do with the Catholic Faith; and because of that, the “algorithm” recommends things to me that fall under the umbrella of “Catholic content.” Among the most popular Catholic content is a stream of media that I can only refer to as “Celebrity Priest” media. More and more, I am seeing on my feeds videos of priests “reacting,” “responding,” or “reviewing” a host of things from the secular culture, whether that be movies, social media influencer videos, or stuff coming from the pope, among other things.

In addition, it is becoming more common to see priests recording videos of themselves in the same ways that Zoomers and undignified millennials do. Forgive me, but I am a bit of a Luddite when it comes to social media trends—and I truly despise almost everything that every pop-culture influencer does—so I don’t know what to call the videos. All I know is that I see priests doing stuff with selfies and jump cuts in their videos, basically trying to “Catholicize” the same garbage that people consume to waste their time.

The trend of priests acting in this way is bad enough, but there is more to be concerned about. In addition to the proliferation of these priest influencers—many of whom have become strikingly famous—it is clear that various media teams are behind the priests to help them promote their content.

While I personally stay in my lane and merely produce podcasts and written material, I do know a bit about how marketing and graphic design work when it comes to content production. It is clear that professional teams are producing the thumbnails, filming the videos, and generating the scripts and topics based on viral trend predictors for these priests. What is most disturbing, however, is that, in many cases, there is a clear intention by the producers to market the priest in a way that makes him look more handsome or attractive.

Of course, some priests are objectively handsome, and there is surely nothing wrong with this. However, there is a difference between Fr. So-and-So being handsome and marketing Fr. So-and-So in a way that accentuates his good looks. What is the point of this other than to attract women to watch the videos? Marketing teams and social-media graphics creators are well aware that in a sea of thumbnails, an attractive image will garner more clicks than a not attractive image. And, they are well aware that an attractive image of an attractive man will bring in clicks from women sucked in by the attraction.

I cannot for the life of me see how that could not be sinful.

In addition, it is not uncommon to see the most well-known of these priests in workout settings or even posting images of themselves flexing in gyms. Personally, I don’t think anyone should post an image of himself flexing, and a priest certainly should not do so; it is vainglorious, sensual, prideful, and seemingly gay.

Now, besides the most egregious offenders of the Celebrity Priest class who do things like showing off their muscles as if they are advertising on a dating app, the fact that they are becoming or have become bona fide “influencers” in the most secular sense of the term is troubling.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Disturbing Celebrity Priest Phenomenon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Deepest gratitude to our beloved Lew Rockwell, and to my good friend, Dr. Tom DiLorenzo, for inviting me here. I’m thrilled to be with you.

My topic is The Real Israel Versus Hasbara History. Hopefully some of you know what Hasbara is. When America’s regime historians reflect on history’s tragedies and travesties, they always praise Pax Americana. That is the idea that American empire, hegemony, brought peace to the world. Conveniently, they leave out the horrors of it.

Naturally, regime historians, the ones we are here to counter, speak a lot about Hitler. They hardly ever mention Hiroshima. Likewise, has Israel shaped its past, mixing some history with myth to render a myth history. The propaganda sustaining Israel’s counterfeit history is called Hasbara, which means explanation in Hebrew. Hasbara constructs serve to coat Israel’s real crimes against humanity with ideological respectability, to give them some purity of purpose.

Think of Hasbara as the steady supply of bogus artificial constructs to rape reality. Undeniably, compared to Hasbara, American foreign policy has a certain narrative talent. The injustices of imperial power notwithstanding, people are persuaded by the strut of it. Less obvious is the appeal of Israeli Hasbara and the Jewish supremacy that goes with it, and has seduced so many Christians into ignoring Christ’s teachings. Christ commands care, not for the oppressor and the predator, but for the poor and the oppressed.

Hasbara and official myth history aside, because of Gaza, you don’t have to know much history at all to arrive at the truth about Israel. Reality is truth. The reality of genocide gives rise to irrefutable truths. Because of Gazans, the living and the martyred, the truth about Israel is now ahistoric.

Shortly after October 7, with the commencement in Gaza of Israel’s Operation Swords of Iron, certain self-evident truths became crystal clear. By late October, Israel’s actions within and without Gaza had shown the world the absolute depravity of Israel, state and civil society.

One such emerged reality is that Palestinians, not Israeli Jews, as Hasbara teaches, are the most imperiled people in the world. Israelis, the most perilous. Another is that Israel, with overwhelming support from the Jewish Israeli public, has gleefully engaged in methodical, indiscriminate, industrial-scale murder and ethnic cleansing ongoing.

The Israel Defense Forces, IDF, were allowed to obliterate the fundamentals of physical, national, and economic life in Gaza, turning it into an uninhabitable post-apocalyptic wasteland. The strip has been reduced to its subsoil particulate elements only badly soiled. Gaza is now a mass grave along a small stretch of the Mediterranean Sea where living ghosts wander. Gaza’s soil is soaked through with a mix of millions of tons of building debris, the decaying bodies of tens of thousands of human beings, their pets, livestock, fauna and flora, all gone. An inferno of garbage, open sewage, and the byproducts and contaminants of munitions, like unexploded ordnance.

Said a scholar of the architecture of occupation: “Israel has stolen from Gaza’s Palestinians the very ability to produce food, or receive it, or use means of exchange to get it.” Banking was dismantled. Believe it or not, but under years of medieval blockade, Gaza’s farmers had, before October 7, fed a third of their people.

Indeed, Israel has systemized the mass murder and displacement of innocent Palestinian civilians, targeting them and their habitat for total warfare. Since war against civilians is a war on civilization, Israel, by extension, is the enemy of civilization.

Our ally Israel is a country in which genocide, snuff films, extrajudicial assassinations, rape, robbery, torture, and starvation of Palestinians are de facto legal. Israel is thus a criminal entity and a threat to the comity of nations. The indictment against Israel ought to have been hermetically sealed.

Israel’s ethnocide and genocide in Gaza is in violation of most systems of ethics known to man over intellectual history. It is in violation of God’s law, the Ten Commandments. These command not to covet, steal, or murder. It is in violation of libertarian law, the axiom of non-aggression. It is in violation of natural justice, the laws of war, although genocide is not war, as well as humanitarian law. And it is in violation of the systems of law within which the above is subsumed, the natural and the positive law.

Right and wrong are universal, not relative. The Sixth Commandment is neither opinion nor optional. Thou shalt not murder or mass murder is called a commandment for a reason. There is no tribal privilege clause attached to it. Like gentiles, Jews are enjoined against wanton murder. Yet Israelis now flout the Sixth Commandment with ugly audacity.

Over the months, I have closely observed Israel as it pulverizes population centers across the Levant. I’ve listened in Hebrew to Israeli Jewish public and political discourse. In Hebrew, the Jewish Israeli public personalities and the public express an impatient, snarling contempt for accusations of genocide, offering an unbroken stream of genocide justification Hasbara. It’s like Israeli Jews are yawning, waiting on the world to wake up to the fact that their lives do matter more, and that any aberrant action taken to make them feel safe must be allowed.

And it is allowed. Israel has played its genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza to a packed house, to the world. Israeli Jews don’t lack for facts, but most appear without the analytical and ethical faculties to examine their actions. They lead the unexamined lives of self-anointed superior beings. Societally, majorities appear to project the sense that their sectarian supremacy transcends the universal moral order to which international law, the natural law, and the Decalogue give expression.

The natural law is a system of ethics knowable through reason, revelation, and experience, whichever floats your boat. Because it’s anchored in the very existential nature of man and reality, the natural law is the highest law known to man and is therefore deductively true and just. An example is the libertarian non-aggression axiom. For reasons obvious, there should be no difference between how classical liberals or anarchists understand the non-aggression axiom, which is the organizing principle of libertarianism. Minarchist, anarchist, or statist, genocide is forbidden.

The positive law, on the other hand, is the creation of the state. Legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. In teasing out right from wrong, we discriminate between acts that are criminal because the state has criminalized them as opposed to acts which are universally criminal. Most civilizing systems of ethics stipulate that no one has a right to kill a single innocent human being, let alone hundreds of thousands of members of a group. There again, Israel’s sacking of Gaza is universally evil.

Lest I be accused of arguing in circles around the definition of genocide, I’ll briefly mention genocide in the context of international versus the natural law. Israel has aced the genocide bar, namely the prohibitions in Article II of the Genocide Convention on destroying a group in whole or in part and/or making life unbearable for that group. Mens rea, intent in Western jurisprudence and judicial philosophy is a component of genocide.

If Palestinians were accorded equality before the law, any law, national or international, then by 2023’s end, logically and perhaps legally Israelis would have been seen as having both spoken their guilty minds and acted out their genocidal intent on the ground. Mass murder is never unintentional when you know it is inevitable and incidental to your mission. If you know in advance that your actions will cause the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents, attached to your criminal actions is a guilty mind, mens rea.

America shares in Israel’s genocidal guilty mind. The U.S. regime has been a worshipful partner in Israel’s vice. It has supplied munitions for mass murder. It has provided diplomatic cover. It has issued seven vetoes and abstentions in the UN Security Council to enable Israel’s continued atrocities. America has menaced countries, legal organs, and American residents for wanting to expel, arrest, protest, or boycott Israelis.

America’s helped Israeli Hasbara in asserting self-defense to justify collective punishment, and America has helped Israel to frame state terrorism as self-defense, normalizing the structural violence that is the state of Israel. The genocide of Gazans was happily and willingly underwritten by the United States government, the American political class, and its Julius Streicher media, which even mid-murder, describe Israelis as victims.

On the matter of industrial-scale mass murder, international law is not at odds with the natural law or the libertarian law. Such is the case of Article Two of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It articulates mostly a set of negative rights. Their enforcement imposes no burden on anybody but the sadistic, sociopathic serial killers under discussion.

Most libertarians would concede that the state now acts extrajudicially, and that any remnants of the natural law once embedded in the US Constitution have long since been buried beneath the rubble of legislation and statute. Let us say then that to the extent that law, local, international, tribal, upholds no more than natural rights, law is okay. To the extent that law violates the rights to life, liberty, and property, law is bad. To the extent state law agrees with the natural law, to that extent it’s inoffensive. By extension, it matters not who upholds the rights of Palestinians to life and land, just so long as someone does. It matters not which state, which federal official, or international organization, or which platoon, Hezbollah or the Houthis, just so long as someone does.

In America, federalism means divided sovereignty, which if we are to take James Madison seriously, should make it difficult for states to begin executing their residents. Why would it be a matter of respect for a country’s sovereignty to allow Israel to systematically occupy and subjugate a population on the off-chance that they eliminate some terrorists, whom by now most consider resistance fighters? Most should.

Make no mistake, in human rights law, there is a responsibility to protect a community that is being evicted and eradicated. There’s a right to resist, under the Hague regulations on belligerent occupation. Neither offends the natural law. Resistance fighters argue that they are heeding this calling, the responsibility to protect. Israel ought to have been forcibly stopped, its innocent victims protected. You don’t placate a John Wayne Gacy and a Jeffrey Dahmer. You stop them, but not as the axis of genocide sees it.

The Arab societies are non-woke societies. The fact that Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Yemen were and are largely traditional societies, not co-opted woke societies, has certainly helped the West justify their mistreatment. You see, the woke masters of the Western universe consider non-woke societies as without the natural right of resistance. Their resistance we call terrorism.

Given that nobody has effectively upheld the legal responsibility to protect Palestinians, all but the spirit of Gaza is gone.

Consider the great Palestinian return to Northern Gaza in January of 2025. The erasure of over 2,000 Gazan bloodlines, family trees gone. An epic event took place despite that erasure. Processions of Palestinians in their thousands returned to their ruined homes in Northern Gaza. You see, the land is central to Palestinian identity. What greater proof is there of the ancestral homesteader claims that Palestinians have to Palestine than this devotion, this resilience?

Contrast this Palestinian rootedness and resilience with Israel’s squirrelly northern and southern sett- settler populations. Israeli Jews have not returned to towns in Israel’s north or south. Rather, their love of the land is predicated on its ethnic cleansing. Only if their army obliterates even the slightest danger posed by their indigenous neighbors would Israeli settlers return.

For yet more of a contrast, look too at the repulsive levels of Israeli environmental destruction in Gaza. This speaks among many other things to Israel’s profound alienation from an ecosystem it shares and claims to care about. Israeli Jews have a greed for the land, not a love of it.

Back to our nemesis, the state.

What about the moral authority of a democratic state? Surely our ally Israel shares our democratic values, or so we are lectured. Well, murder with majority approval is still murder, whomever the perpetrator. Whether it is committed by the decree of the one dictator or the will of the many, by actors within or without the state, by the designated good guys or by the bad guys, murder of innocents is always murder.

You would be correct to conclude, however, that this 21st century holocaust is popular.

Thumping majorities across Israel’s public and private sectors have throughout justified, finessed, and fibbed about their army’s AI high-tech-driven depopulation and extermination orgy in Gaza. Eager to write the Palestinian obituary as late in the genocide as February of 2025, 80% of Jewish Israelis signaled their support for Trump’s plan for Gaza. Only 3% thought it immoral.

Trump’s plan is an extension and completion of Joe Biden’s genocide, which included the internal displacement, depopulation, and large-scale extermination of the Strip and its people. First, Donald Trump has proposed to cover up Israel’s crime of genocide, removing the pitiful exhibits from the scene of the crime. Next, he planned to conclude Joe’s genocide by scattering the survivors across the Middle East. Israel will have been rescued. Gazans would have ceased to exist as a nation. The liquidation and extermination campaign in the Gaza ghetto would have been completed.

Debating and committing genocidal violence, forcibly displacing millions, starving a subjugated population, all this many of Trump backers called out-of-the-box thinking. Who said crime doesn’t pay? When the superpower inverts the moral order of the universe, the crime of all crime pays and then some.

In any case, genocide has won a plebiscite in Israel. No surprise. Remember, the IDF is Israel. It’s a citizen army in which every Israeli must serve. It’s the voice of the Jewish Israeli commonwealth. Israel’s sons and daughters are the stars in the country’s genocide constellation. We’ve watched them level Gaza, vaporize young men picking their way through rubble as though in a video game, mock the victims, snipe their kids, rape their men, rob their businesses, rummage through the intimate effects of people dead and dispossessed, invade and explode entire residential buildings. True, all Israeli Jews are conscripted and must enlist in this army. However, the military draft does not compel a conscript to commit, chronicle, and crow over what is institutionalized, legalized serial-killer-type crime. The pride and joy seen, recorded, and then transmitted to the world from thousands of IDF mobile phones over months has been voluntary, spontaneous, and organic to Israeli society’s tenor and project.

So please let us hear no Nuremberg defense. “I was only following orders” must not be tolerated in mitigation of the IDF. The evidence is conclusive, idea of shoot, loot, and bomb for fun. No doubt the Israeli state is genocidal, but by the numbers and by their statements, Israeli society is as sociopathic. From janitor to general, from soldiers to Supreme Court justices. As uncomfortable as this is for us, for the libertarian individualist, the facts are clear. On the matter of the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza, Israeli Jews, Israeli Jewish society does not stand apart from the Jewish state.

Throughout, polled opinion in Israel was not split between Jewish Israelis for mass murder versus Israelis against mass murder and ethnic cleansing. No. The division in Israeli society has been between Jewish Israelis for current levels of violence against Gazans versus those for greater or lesser industry in what were already industrial levels and methods of murder.

By the polls, nothing outside their self-righteous and self-obsessed selves mattered to a preponderance of Jewish Israelis. Israeli Jews, by and large, have become a sorority of Jewish supremacists, and Palestinians have paid a terrible price for Israel’s systemic societal sociopathy.

Ask Israelis about Palestinian babies shredded to bits, real beheadings, and they’ll dish Hasbara. “It’s all in self-defense, and it’s all the doing of a third party.” Guess who made them do the genocide? Hamas. “It’s not me,” says the criminal. “Hamas ate my homework.” “I mean my… I mean my conscience.” This is Israel’s third-party theory of culpability. Israel vomits it up, the West laps it up.

The Hamas made me mass murder non sequitur exposes Israel’s Hasbara for its irrationality. Since when do you blame a third party for your ongoing crimes in real time?

Put it this way, the state in which you live has no right to evict you from your home and bomb your neighborhood because its agents believe outlaws hide in your neighborhood. The crime of passion defense is bad enough. The third-party theory of culpability must never bolster it. The crime of passion defense we associate with a single event, not with sadistic serial killer… Serial killers loosed for months on end on millions of innocents across the Via Dolorosa that is Gaza.

Yes, Israel has an historic passion, all right, but for methodical mass murder. See, the idea of… It’s not a fighting force, it’s an air force. Judged from its actions over time, this air force’s objectives are not to defeat a regular army, but to pound population centers into submission in Gaza, across the Levant, and beyond. What other country has not only had killer practices codified in law, but also named… The Dahiya Doctrine is named after the southern suburbs of Beirut, upon whose Shia civilians the Israeli Air Force has perfected its predation. Mowing the lawn. That’s the term used across Israel to signal murder sprees periodical against Palestinian civilians to keep populations subdued.

Fans of true crime TV, me, will remember the Highway I-5 serial killer. Imagine his killer craft being dubbed the I-5 Doctrine, and Wikipedia describing this infamous serial killer murderer of women as an originator of the I-5 Doctrine.

Without a doubt, public protest too in Israel has followed a strictly “me, me” solipsistic self-interest. There was little transcendent humanity whatsoever in Israeli hostage protests. Remember this. By the numbers and by their own words, most Israeli Jews were simply demanding a return of their hostages. Said one Israeli pundit, “Israeli wants… want… Israelis want their hostages back. They don’t want Gaza back.”

If the Israeli state is a criminal entity, what then can be said about the US? Israel’s war on Gaza, the West Bank, and the Greater Levant is America’s war. Like it or not, Gaza is a genocide. We hear disinterested mumblings about the national interest, uh, “Don’t talk to me about Gaza. It’s of no national interest to the United States of America.” I’m afraid it’s too late for the national interest dodge. The US is an interventionist hegemon. It has aided, abetted, and partaken in via reconnaissance an extermination campaign in Gaza.

Besides often being immoral, the national interest argument is a form of statism. The premise of national interest political pragmatism leads to this perverse logic. If enabling the slaughter of Gazans and Iraqis happen to be in the American national interest, then those endeavors would have been justified in accordance with the national interest standards. In other words, if the US government considered genocide in the national interest, then genocide it is. America should act as the divine… on the… as… on its divine rights as global judge, jury, and executioner. No, genocide is not a foreign policy matter, it is a moral matter.

And the United States’ energetic support for the Gaza holocaust is a defining event in the annals of American foreign policy aberrations, and in the national life. While American foreign policy is a museum of horrors, Gaza is now the main exhibit.

Why is Gaza qualitatively different from foreign policy deformities that went before? Here’s why, in my opinion. So far, America’s foreign policy has been largely focused on regime change program where collateral damage is largely concealed but framed as incidental to a political program. Again and again, the American masters of the universe have gone to war to make the world woke. Namely, make it over in America’s image, as well as make the world safe for Israel, of course. Mass murder within the American foreign policy framework has generally been secondary to a program of warring to make the world work. Crudely put, “Be like us or we’ll kill you.”

In Gaza, however, America’s participated in mass murder for the sake of murder. In Gaza, Uncle Sam has finally achieved an official or formal inversion of all universal values.

What the US has approved and assisted in Gaza is a primetime 21st-century holocaust. In a sense, Israel has affected a radical ethical inversion in America. Sects of Christianity can no longer distinguish Satan from God, mutually exclusive categories. They favor apex edicts over the commandment of the prince of peace. But you are what you do. The Israeli state is genocidal, not by virtue of its actions and the declared intent accompanying these actions, not because it has been denounced as genocidal by so-called anti-Semites and terrorist sympathizers. Said Jesus, “Therefore, by their fruits, you will know them.”

Another of Hasbarah’s aims is to frame IDF’s ongoing extermination campaign against the population of cornered civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as byproducts of war, as incidental to a just war prosecuted by brave fighters.

If it’s portrayed as a war crime, genocide can be dismissed as no more than a case of, “Oops, bad things happen in the butcher shop of war.” In Gaza, however, Israel has waged genocide, not war. Dressing up a canned hunt as a war is pure Hasbarah. Genocide is not a war. The genocide-as-war-crime conceptualization provides cover and lends authority to criminals and criminality. You mitigate and minimize genocide when you call it a war crime. You see, genocide is not a war crime to which a set of mitigating and explanatory legal defenses can attach. Genocide is a standalone, indefensible crime of all crimes for which there are no legal or moral defenses. There are no extenuating circumstances, historical, legal, or other, for genocide.

True, Israel’s genocide has been disrupted by asymmetric warfare from non-state Palestinian resistance fighters, but there is an enormous power differential between occupier and occupied.

That the serial killers encounter organized regional resistance does not make genocide a war.

So far, I’ve anatomized what Israel state and society has done to the Gaza Strip and its people since October 7, but what have Gazans, the living and the martyred, accomplished? A great deal.

Outwardly captives, Palestinians are truly liberated from the liberal political propaganda that grips the West. They have made us see Israel as an irreparably corrupt force, morally and militarily. The genocide of Gaza has very plainly invalidated Israel and validated the Palestinian cause.

A moral, sentient human being need know nothing much about the history of the region to arrive at this conclusion. Here’s why. You’ve seen Israel for the contradiction it is. Israel astonishingly has engaged in the mother of all performative contradictions, denying genocide while publicly committing genocide, effectively asserting a birthright to do genocide. Israel demands to exist as a privileged protected aberration, carrying out satanic deeds with universal blessings and absolution. Think about it. Caught in the protracted planful act of committing genocide, the guilty party, Israel, persist in claiming for itself the right to kill and deceive without being considered and treated as a killer and con artist. The chutzpah.

To no avail, human action, as Mises taught us, is the undeniable key to man-made reality. Israel and the US have acted. They’ve been exposed. Ethnocide, depopulation, and domicide are never justified and can never be exculpated. To assert that you are just and justified as you carry out that which cannot be just or justified, this is to embody the most grotesque contradiction and to be less than human, less than coherent. At minimum, Israel deserves the revulsion and isolation reserved for entities whose existence is a confidence trick and a fraud upon us all.

The same ahistoric Hoppean argumentation, God bless Hoppe, applied to invalidate Israel will serve here to validate the Palestinians’ reality as they have been telling it over decades. Israel’s televised genocide has corroborated the reality of the Palestinians, their reason for rage, and their rights to resistance and recompense.

Palestinians have been telling us for decades that they have been set upon by murderers and thieves. Palestinians have told us they are being killed and robbed as a matter of course. Their reality has been irrefutably affirmed since October 7. Now, if supporters of Israel’s genocide in Gaza deny this, they too would be fraudsters living a lie. The liar’s life of lies we expose by compelling the denier of the Palestinian holocaust to live his own lie.

Deniers of the Palestinian reality, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, Biden, Bibi, Blinken, Douglas Murray, Dennis Prager, would be parachuted into occupied Gaza. Genocide would become their lived reality, not their rhetorical reality.

Running here and there as tanks advance on the denier, ducking and diving bombardments from above, as if you can escape the death radius of American-made 2,500-pound bombs. These Holocaust deniers would be recorded scratching for scraps, carrying jerricans of contaminated drinking water back to nylon dwellings, climbing over kilometers of decaying structures through ruins and twisted metal. Our camera will find these Holocaust deniers queuing with thousands to use a single functioning toilet, plumbing having been destroyed by the Israelis. The denier of the Palestinian holocaust would be filmed up close, suffering dysentery, sepsis, and starvation, intubated, amputated, or C-sectioned without narcotics. Twisting on a hospital floor smeared by blood and waste. Listening to the incessant whirring above of Israel’s quadcopter killer drones. The Holocaust denier will therefore live this absolute truth, the ontological truth of Israel’s final solution to its Palestinian problem.

The nature of Palestinian reality is, as they’ve been telling it, QED proposition proven.

In conclusion, books are now being written more about Israeli and Jewish anguish than about the victims. Being Jewish after Gaza is one.

Israel’s theocracy, Israel’s moral and military degeneration, Israel’s looming collapse. When did it begin? Right wing, left wing? Why? Why? Why? Everyone is beating on breast about Israel.

An apt response are the words of a character from Southern literature, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

And neither should you worry about the perpetrators of genocide only to the extent that punishment is exacted upon Israel for what it has done to the Palestinians, that reparations and restitution are extracted from Israel in perpetuity for the Palestinians. Thank you.

The post The Real Israel vs. Hasbara History appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

This is a good show. It shows what it’s like to fly these old WWII cargo planes in the NW Territories of Canada. Working on the planes is unforgiving. Everyone has to pitch in. I’ve never cleaned snow off the wings of a plane. At Chelan Airways, Nick, the owner/pilot, did it. I didn’t volunteer. To fall off the wing into an ice-cold Lake Chelan would not be a pleasant experience.

I’ve worked on a DC-3 (double engine change in St.Thomas, Virgin Islands), and have toured a DC-4 (Salmon & Cocaine Airways), but I’ve never worked on or been in a C-46. There was a C-46 parked on the tarmac near Cruzeiro Air at Belem International Airport when I was there. It never moved. 

As usual, the show is always about the pilots, even the secretary/cargo organizer, but rarely about the aircraft mechanics. Typical. 

The post Ice Pilots appeared first on LewRockwell.

The first few weeks of the second Trump Administration were exciting and hopeful. Elon Musk, along with the support of a large majority of Americans, was going to dive into the Swamp in order free the American citizens. It actually looked as though it were going to happen. The pentagon would be audited, Ft. Knox would be visited, the Fed would be audited, and TRILLIONS would be cut from the budget! But alas, even the richest man in the world (armed with public opinion) would be stopped cold. None of the above would come. Government spending and debt are expected to skyrocket even further!

The post Neocon GOP Strikes Again! DOGE Is Out … Deficits & Debts Are Still In appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.  

Antiwar.com Blog

The post Marco Rubio’s Bizarre War on Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Grayzone

The post Docs expose Israeli influence on UK anti-genocide protest prosecutions appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

US Africa Command confirmed that no civilians were killed or injured in a press release, adding that “protecting civilians remains a vital part of the command’s operations to promote a more secure and stable Africa.”

https://nypost.com/2025/02/03/us-news/video-shows-trump-ordered-airstrikes-in-somalia/

Tell it to the Houthis and to the Palestinians slaughtered by the bombs we supply to Netanyahu.  

Trump’s been into the Somalia bombing for quite a long time: US Bombed Somalia Amid Russian Invasion of Ukraine | Common Dreams

Bombs and Propaganda

The post Bombing Somalia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Neal:

The anniversary of the Liberty Attack- A couple of us here have been discussing this event-

I plan to go up to Arlington for the ceremony- This video is a discussion with a historian who makes many documentaries about various events, and here he interviews Philip Tourney, a survivor of the attack.

The post The Liberty incident, June 8, 1967 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Pluto9999 wrote:

Hi Lew

Although a true “cashless” society would indeed be a hardship, Mr Barnes prediction of everyone actually having to contract electronically is shortsighted, in that he minimizes the power of the free – or in this case – the black market.  Despite the enormous waste of resources to combat the drug trade, it still hums along, avoiding most crackdowns.  In a “cashless” society that same power will be unleashed in providing people with another cash asset – most likely gold – to facilitate transactions.  In fact, in an ironic twist, the state cracking down on cash may finally move us toward a solid non-fiat currency – gold.

Have a great Tax Freedom Day June 12, and thank you for all that you and the Mises Institute do!

The post Here’s How a Cashless Society Will Impact the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Ron Desantis Says Property Taxes are a Scam: Damn Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recently, I watched a documentary on Larry Nassar. He was the team doctor for the U.S. Women’s national gymnastics team from 1996-2014. In January, 2018, Nassar was convicted of possessing child pornography and ten counts of sexual assault. He was sentenced to an astounding 100-235 years in prison.

Nassar had been accused of sexually assaulting at least 265 young girls. This was a real case of #MeToo Syndrome, as seemingly every girl he had coached eventually joined in, telling their own stories, which as far as I can tell were extremely scant on details. Color me skeptical, as usual. I have yet to hear any media outlet tell Nassar’s side of the story. What was his explanation? I’ve watched two specials on Nassar, and there wasn’t a single talking head, a single defense lawyer, who at least attempted to provide some context. The most incredible aspect of these charges was that the accusers- again, not sure how many, but perhaps all of them as far as I know- revealed that their parents were present during the abuse. You might be thinking, wait a minute, how could a sexual assault happen in front of parents? Yeah, that’s what I was wondering about. If I understand correctly, Nassar is accused of touching these girls inappropriately, while their parents were right there in the same room.

Again, the case is a bit fuzzy on specifics, as happens all too often in the #MeToo world. It seems that Nassar’s conduct was first reported in June, 2015, when the personal coach of a female gymnast heard her discussing Nassar with another girl. Once the #MeToo effect kicked in, it was eventually alleged that Nassar had been abusing girls since as early as 1994. Some victims would claim they reported his behavior to his superiors at Michigan State University in 1997. I suppose Michigan State initially denied this, but I don’t know for sure, because the media coverage is essentially a prosecutorial brief. Three former gymnasts would appear on 60 minutes in February, 2017, to accuse Nassar of sexually abusing them. They also, very tellingly, used the virtue signaling phrase “emotionally abusive environment.” Nassar was accused of inserting his finger in the vaginas of an unclear number of girls, in the presence of an unclear number of parents, who somehow never recognized it.

In October, 2017, Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney did indeed use the #MeToo hashtag on Twitter, charging that Nassar had repeatedly molested her for eight years. Once the parade of former gymnasts read their victim impact statements in court, Nassar had zero chance at any kind of impartial justice. I think I’m the only one in the world who is opposed to victim impact statements, which are not evidence, and serve only to emotionally manipulate the proceedings. Apparently, Nassar was still claiming to be “an innocent person” behind bars, when he was stabbed ten times in July, 2023. I’d sure like to know what Nassar’s defense was. You certainly can’t find out from any television program on the subject, or anywhere else online. If Nassar is the monster he’s being portrayed as, then I’m guilty of asking pointless questions. But I can’t help but be skeptical about these kinds of collective tales of victimhood.

“Victims” and “survivors” are all the rage in our society. And they’re almost always female. Was there ever some kind of #MeToo moment for sodomized altar boys? I must have missed that. Do they get to call themselves “victims” and “survivors” of sexual assault for the rest of their lives? And I’m pretty sure that virtually all of them who were abused were abused by penises, not fingers. The same thing with boy scouts. A lot of them came out later and claimed abuse. But it just wasn’t the same. There was no giant cavalcade of now male adults who’d been in the same troop coming forth belatedly with “yes, I was abused too” allegations. Few of them were granted softball interviews, where they were treated as “victims” and “survivors,” not human beings who were making serious allegations long after the fact. There is a strange camaraderie between female “survivors,” which you just don’t see with males.

The same media which accepted without question any gymnast’s belated accusation against Nassar went apoplectic at suggestions that the John Podesta emails, published by Wikileaks, contained “coded” references to child sex, because of the massive and inordinate use of the terms “pizza” and “pasta.” In one email, there was a ridiculous reference to a napkin left behind at a party, that contained a “pizza related map.” The owner of Comet Ping Pong certainly posted some bizarre things on Instagram, but that was all “debunked.” The entire media- including most of the alt media- assures us of that. Some suitable “nut” fired a gun in Comet Ping Pong, and that somehow settled the case. Ignore the photo of the little girl duct taped to a table there. Recently, that gunman just happened to be shot dead by our brave law enforcement officers during some kind of traffic stop. Nothing to see here. Just ask the fact checkers.

What is odd is how easily such claims are accepted, when the alleged abuser is a lone individual, like Nassar, with no powerful political connections. Compare that to the kids who alleged sexual abuse- and again, not with fingers- from the most powerful people in Nebraska, as detailed in John DeCamp’s book The Franklin Cover-Up. Not only were those almost all boy victims ignored by the media, the only female victim, Alisha Owen, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to 9-29 years in prison. She had accused the most influential local figures, from a newspaper publisher to the chief of police, with genuine rape. No parents present. The only documentary ever produced on the case, Conspiracy of Silence, was pulled from airing at the last moment, and can only be seen online, in a very poor quality video copy. The accusations were detailed, and included an inadvertent description of Bohemian Grove, where our top leaders cavort, with no females anywhere in sight, every July in the California hills.

The preschoolers who made identical accusations against those who ran the McMartin Preschool in California were again treated much more skeptically than the girl gymnasts would be. Despite the fact that a doctor testified to evidence of anal trauma in the vast majority of these preschoolers, the entire mainstream media took the side of the adults accused of much more graphic sexual crimes than Nassar ever was. The preschoolers were scoffed at. Much as one of the main boy accusers in the Franklin case was found dead under highly suspicious circumstances, the woman who first reported her concerns about McMartin would later die in questionable fashion as well. That tends to happen to those who point out examples of what the late Dave McGowan called the international Pedophocracy. If you’re a wildly unbalanced woman like E. Jean Carroll, your claims of rape in some unspecified year long ago are believed. But not if you’re a preschooler with a traumatized anus.

My radar is triggered when I hear constant references to not only dubious #MeToo “survivors,” but also upon noticing how every woman (again, not men) whose cancer goes into remission can don the mantle of “survivor.” As someone who wrote Bullyocracy, the definitive word on bullying, I’ve long wondered why middle-age adults, still haunted by what they experienced at the hands of other kids decades earlier, aren’t called “survivors.” Can those who’ve been ripped off in some financial scheme claim they “survived” that? They surely were real victims. Hasn’t any husband who was cheated on “survived” his wife’s adultery? What about all the blue collar workers, and common laborers, who’ve been mistreated and abused by excessively strict bosses over the decades? Weren’t they “victims?” Can’t they say they “survived” a very bad experience? We’ve all been sold defective products- lemons. Why can’t we virtue signal about being “victims” and “survivors” of crony capitalism?

What about Jared Fogle, the former Subway spokesman? Again, I watched a one-sided documentary on his case, and I still don’t know exactly what he really did with underage girls. He had a female friend, who was a former radio DJ, and oddly took it upon herself to expose him for something she had no idea he was guilty of at first. She recorded all their phone calls, and like an undercover cop in a chat room pretending to be a 12 year old, she did everything she could to lead him on, even insinuating that she thought such things were ‘hot.” The clearly smitten Fogle, who’d been bullied himself as a fat youngster, I think just started telling her what she wanted to hear, naively believing it would impress her. At any rate, Fogle was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years for child pornography and child sexual abuse. But it’s unclear just what children Fogle abused, and if so, the circumstances surrounding it.

I’ve never been raped, or sexually abused. It must be awful. According to the information I found online, the average prison sentence for rape is eight years. Believe it or not, the average sentence for murder is only 15-25 years. So how does a guy like Nassar, who was accused of inserting his fingers into various vaginas, most often while parents were present, get 100-235 years? I mean, even if he did do that to hundreds of girls, certainly that must be considered a lesser offense than actual rape, or even murder? Maybe I just don’t understand the #MeToo mindset. Perhaps I’m shamefully insensitive to all the tearful victim impact statements. I’m a civil libertarian, and my first impulse is to look for loopholes in any prosecution. I’ve found very few cases where there weren’t tons of loopholes. Reasonable doubt everywhere. But you can’t fight #MeToo, and the victimhood of “survivors.”

I know I’m going against the grain here, as usual. I’m used to being in the distinct minority. Recently, Kat Timpf, a young regular on Fox News’ popular Gutfeld program, was diagnosed with breast cancer when she gave birth to her first child. I think they said it was Stage 1- which is the beginning stage, according to my limited knowledge. Stages of cancer are sometimes like categories of hurricanes. It’s confusing. At any rate, Timpf rather surprisingly chose to undergo a double mastectomy, which doesn’t seem to have been necessary. Maybe she remembered the example set by actress and CFR member Angelina Jolie, who had a mastectomy even though she didn’t have cancer. And wasn’t “transitioning.” She said she did it because of her family history. I’m not close to being a member of the CFR, so that doesn’t make sense to me. At any rate, opting for such radical measures seems to augment the whole “survivor” status.

What is often glossed over is the fact that women do make false rape claims. And when that is exposed, they are rarely prosecuted for it. Look at the Duke lacrosse case, where racial politics were front and center, and caused an unquestioning state controlled media to not only accept the Black stripper’s ludicrous story, but also dox the White players accused, by publishing the home addresses of their families. How many men have languished in prison for years, or even decades, and then been cleared of rape by DNA evidence? How many of those who falsely accused them, robbing them of a large portion of their lives, were ever prosecuted? Isn’t that kind of the ultimate disinformation? You know, the kind the government is so concerned about? I guess it depends upon which side your disinformation is buttered on. You could argue that serving years in prison for a rape you didn’t commit is as bad as rape itself.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Feminization of Victimhood appeared first on LewRockwell.

On June 4th the Florida Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in a free speech case that could affect all attorneys and other professionals in the state and their basic right to free speech. The case involves Attorney Christopher W. Crowley, a former candidate for State Attorney in Florida’s 20th Circuit. Crowley was a target of a bar complaint, and the Florida Bar is trying to take away his legal license for political speech during a partisan Republican Primary race for State Attorney.

Crowley lost in a combative political campaign, against Amira Fox for State Attorney. After the campaign, Crowley was targeted with what appear to be frivolous Bar complaints by political opponents. Instead of dismissing the complaints, the Florida Bar has engaged in an anti-First Amendment crusade. The Florida State Bar charged Christopher Crowley with defamation of his political opponent, Amira Fox, after Mr. Crowley raised concerns about his political opponent during their political campaign in a Republican primary.

The referee, in the case recommended Christopher Crowley, Esq. to a 60-day suspension of his law license, for engaging in ‘controversial’ political speech during a Republican Primary campaign in Florida’s 20th district for State Attorney. Crowley appealed this decision, and the case will be heard in the Florida Supreme Court on June 4, 2025.

Nonpartisan judicial races have strict rules for attorneys campaigning for those offices, these rules have not been construed to apply to all political races. There currently is nothing in Florida Bar rules about restrictions on running for partisan political office. This judge’s creative application of judicial rules to non-judicial races disregards the First Amendment in an area that is considered the most sacred form of speech, political speech.

The Florida Bar appeared to be applying Maoist tactics in the case attempting to coerce Crowley to metaphorically put on a dunce hat and apologize for his incorrect speech during his political campaign.

Crowley’s ordeal is featured in a chapter in a new book by Lisa Miron, called WORLD ON MUTE: How Workplace Speech Committees are Destroying our Nations, and Eliminating our Civil Liberties. The book addresses the issue of professional organizations attempting to silence free speech under the threat of licensure removal.

Surprisingly, the case has not garnered much attention from alternative media. The outcome may impact all attorneys running for political office in the State of Florida and potentially all licensed professionals.

The campaign was nasty back and forth and Crowley made an issue of his opponent Amira Fox’s father’s book that was dedicated to his daughters and her uncle who had allegedly been a PLO member. Crowley was arrested because supporters held a raffle to raise money, which he never deposited and returned. At the time Crowley alleged that it was Amira Fox who had him arrested. Crowley then alleged that Amia Fox was corrupt claiming that Amira Fox interfered with a grand jury in a case.

The actual accusations and political mudslinging are irrelevant. The issue is whether the First Amendment applies to political races. The answer should be an obvious yes.

Crowley’s attorney is arguing that his speech is protected and that the Court must use a subjective rather than an objective standard, meaning that the speaker must knowingly make false statements:

“Nor is professional speech entitled to any lesser weight on the constitutional scales. The Court “has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advoc. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 767 (2018). Thus, a “State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights.” Id. at 769 (citation omitted). “For example, th[e] Court has applied strict scrutiny to content-based laws that regulate the noncommercial speech of lawyers.” Id. at 771. Thus, the First Amendment will not tolerate tipping the constitutional scales in favor of the State by excusing the requirement that an attorney-speaker be shown to have a subjective recklessness before penalizing defamatory speech of a public official or figure—even a public legal officer or candidate.”

Since 2020, Western nations such as Canada and Western Europe have denigrated into countries resembling former Soviet bloc countries, while Eastern Europe has appeared to be greater defenders of liberty. In America the ‘Cancel Culture’ has become a common term as individuals are cancelled on social media.

Arguably, the Florida Bar is acting under the color of law and is therefore restrained by the Constitution. The Florida Bar, while a private organization, is an instrument of the government. Since being a member in good standing is a requirement of licensure in the legal profession it is painfully obvious that the Florida Bar is acting on behalf of the State of Florida.

Read the Whole Article

The post Florida Supreme Court Case Could Affect Professionals’ Right to Free Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

How would people react if, on the third time their broken-down car was towed to the same repair shop for the same problem, the swaggering mechanic told them: “Sure — the engine doesn’t work today but — follow me on this — next year, you will drive from coast to coast, and get 90 miles to the gallon!”

Yet if a politician promises to fix the world, people applaud and follow him regardless of previous crashes.

Woodrow Wilson revolutionized the political exploitation of idealism. In his 1917 speech to Congress calling for war against Germany, Wilson proclaimed that “the world must be made safe for democracy.” He described the U.S. government as “one of the champions of the rights of mankind” and stated the goal of the war was to “bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.”

Wilson endlessly invoked the ideal of liberty as he seized nearly absolute power over Americans, including the power to conscript millions of Americans to fight wherever he chose (including Siberia) and to commandeer entire industries.

While Wilson is today hailed as a visionary, in his own time, he became loathed as a demagogue. The more people embraced the ideals he proclaimed, the easier it became to defraud them. Americans’ idealism was fanned by ruthless censorship of any criticism of the government’s war effort.

The 1919 Paris peace talks shredded Wilson’s pretensions and made a mockery of the cause for which he sent more than a hundred thousand Americans to their death. One of Wilson’s top aides, Henry White, later commented: “We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell’s dirtiest work.” Historian Thomas Fleming, the author of The Illusion of Victory, noted, “The British and French exploited the war to forcibly expand their empires and place millions more people under their thumbs.” Fleming concluded that one lesson of World War I is that “idealism is not synonymous with sainthood or virtue. It only sounds that way.”

The 1920 presidential election was a referendum on Wilson-style idealism. As H. L. Mencken wrote on the eve of the vote, Americans were tired “of a steady diet of white protestations and black acts; they are weary of hearing highfalutin and meaningless words; they sicken of an idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.” Mencken explained why a typical voter would support Warren Harding: “Tired to death of intellectual charlatanry, he turns despairingly to honesty imbecility.”

Herbert Hoover’s subjugation idealism

Herbert Hoover, who campaigned as the Mastermind of the Age when he was elected president in 1928, invoked idealism to perpetuate subjugating foreigners to U.S. rule. When Congress enacted a bill to provide for the independence of the Philippine Islands, Hoover vetoed it in early 1933 because “We have a responsibility to the world … to develop and perfect freedom for these people.” Hoover rejected Congress’s bill because “it does not fulfill the idealism with which this task in human liberation was undertaken.” As long as the United States had not given Filipinos “perfect freedom,” it was entitled
to keep them under its thumb. Hoover’s assertion that idealism spurred the U.S. policy is difficult to reconcile with the killings of scores of thousands of Filipinos who resisted the U.S. takeover of their islands in the early 1900s. Hoover’s veto ensured that the United States remained mired in the Philippines until the Bataan death march and beyond.

FDR’s practical idealism

President Franklin Roosevelt was hailed as an idealist because he urged people to have faith in government to solve the nation’s problems. FDR assured the Young Democratic Clubs of America in 1940 that “you need practical idealism to make the present machinery function better.” “Practical idealism” signified FDR’s boundless faith in his own economic manipulations, such as setting the price of gold on a whim, reversing policies at the flip of a coin, and whipsawing anyone who counted on his promises. During World War II, FDR idealized American allies, touting the Soviet Union as one of the “freedom-loving nations.” Roosevelt’s glorification of the Soviets helped beget the infamous Yalta agreement that effectively consigned 100 million plus Germans, Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians to serfdom under Stalin. By deluding Americans, FDR’s idealism set the stage for a backlash that propelled the Cold War.

JFK’s service idealism

John F. Kennedy exploited idealistic appeals to capture the presidency in 1960. JFK talked as if the U.S. government could practically solve all problems, from ending tyranny (intervening everywhere against Communism) to ending worldwide poverty (with Peace Corps volunteers magically lifting foreign nations simply by their mere presence). Kennedy’s glorification of public service was simply an updating of the 1920s cult of service. But since he appealed for people to join the government instead of the Kiwanis, he was considered a visionary.

LBJ’s Vietnam idealism

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “For 188 years, the strongest fiber of America has been that thread of idealism which weaves through all our effort and all our aspiration.” Three years later, amidst rising antiwar protests, LBJ warned, “Idealism without commitment is like a bright light burning in a vacuum. Commitment without idealism can easily become frenzied and destructive.” At a 1968 presidential prayer breakfast, Johnson combined God and idealism to try to redeem his biggest muddle: “Belief in a divine providence is … a compelling challenge to men to attain the ideals of liberty, justice, peace, and compassion. It is often — as it is today in Vietnam — a call for very great sacrifice.” Johnson’s comment came the day after the start of the Viet Cong’s Tet Offensive, which stunned Americans who had swallowed LBJ’s boasting about how the enemy was nearly vanquished.

Nixon’s corrupt idealism

The backlash from LBJ’s “credibility gap” helped elect Richard Nixon, a politician renowned for dirty pool since his first red-baiting congressional victory in 1946. After his defeat in the 1960 presidential race, Nixon rebuilt his political fortunes as a born-again idealist. Bromides permeated his first presidential term: “Idealism without pragmatism is impotent…. The key to effective leadership is pragmatic idealism.” Alternatively, “Idealism without realism is impotent. Realism without idealism is immoral.” Nixon declared in 1971 at the University of Nebraska: “I believe one of America’s most priceless assets is the idealism which motivates the young people of America.”

Nixon’s invocations on idealism did not dissuade him from lying and lawbreaking across the board. Nor did gushing over youthful idealism deter him from perpetuating the Vietnam War and sending 20,000 potential American idealists to their deaths.

Reagan’s hypocritical idealism

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan told the Conservative Political Action Committee: “There is, in America, a greatness and a tremendous heritage of idealism which is a reservoir of strength and goodness. It is ours if we will but tap it.”

Reagan was deified by conservatives for preaching that “government is the problem, not the solution.” The Reagan presidency illustrates how idealizing a politician allows him to do as he pleases. The trust and support Reagan garnered enabled him to dictate a national drinking age (18), rev up the drug war, create new handouts for business and farmers, and bankroll guerrilla conflicts and repression abroad. But because Reagan constantly praised liberty, his power grabs were asterisks instead of outrages.

Clinton’s bombing idealism

Bill Clinton captured the presidency in 1992 in part thanks to idealistic-sounding  appeals for reviving faith in government. In his first term, his idealism was personified by AmeriCorps — the paid “volunteer” program that provided cheering squads when Clinton arrived at airport tarmacs around the nation. Throughout his second term, Clinton continually assured audiences: “I’m more idealistic today than I was the day that I took the Oath of Office” — as if his idealism was proof of his virtue. Clinton portrayed the  U.S. bombing of Serbia in 1999 as American idealism at its best: “Because we believe every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … we are proud to stand with our Allies in defense of these ideals in Kosovo.” But the U.S. bombing merely reversed the roles, permitting the Kosovo Liberation Army to terrorize Serb civilians as the Serb Army had previously abused ethnic Albanians.

Bush’s military idealism

President George W. Bush portrayed his invasion of Iraq as American idealism at its best. In his May 1, 2003, “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush hailed “the character of our military through history” for showing “the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies.” Speaking three weeks later at a Republican fundraiser, he bragged, “The world has seen the strength and the idealism of the United States military.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius declared in late 2003 that “this may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times.” Bush’s ideals did nothing to resurrect the American soldiers or Iraqi civilians killed after his perpetual brazen false claims paved the way to the U.S. attack on Iraq.

Obama’s assassination idealism

Barack Obama probably did more damage to idealism than any president since Woodrow Wilson. In his first inaugural address, Obama declared that America’s “ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.” But one of Obama’s most shocking legacies was his claim of a prerogative to kill U.S. citizens labeled as terrorist suspects without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked individuals to legally object. Obama’s lawyers even refused to disclose the standards used for designating Americans for death. Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, and he personally chose who would be killed at weekly “Terror Tuesday” White House meetings that featured PowerPoint parades of potential targets.

In 2011, Obama draped his decision to bomb Libya by invoking “democratic values,” and the “ideals” that he asserted were, he said, “the true measure of American leadership.” Obama was so convinced of the righteousness of targeting dictator Muammar Qadaffi that his appointees signaled that federal law (such as the War Powers Act) could not constrain his salvation mission.  At that point, the terrorist groups fighting Qaddafi were already slaughtering civilians.  In the chaos that subsequently engulfed Libya, ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. When their corpses arrived back in the U.S., Obama hailed the victims for embodying “the courage, the hope, and yes, the idealism, that fundamental American belief that we can leave this world a little better than before.” Obama’s soothing rhetoric failed to deter the proliferation of slave markets where black migrants were openly sold in Libya.

Idealism and tyranny

Nowadays, idealism is often positive thinking about growing servitude. Idealism encourages citizens to view politics as a faith-based activity, transforming politicians from hucksters to saviors. The issue is not what government did in the past — the issue is how we must do better in the future. Politicians’ pious piffle is supposed to radically reduce the risk of subsequent perfidy.

Idealistic appeals permit politicians to stack the deck in listeners’ minds. To believe an idealistic speech is to “do good” — akin to displaying a “Support our Troops” decal on one’s automobile. Idealism is the most dangerous species of political lie. The idealistic draping confers an obligation to believe, or at least to defer. The moral bonus a politician receives for invoking ideals usually exceeds any demerits for lying. Thus, lying about ideals is a guaranteed win for politicians.

Self-government cannot survive people idealizing their rulers. Telling citizens to glorify contemporary politicians is like urging battered wives to idealize their husbands. Why should we expect political idealism to be more honest than politics? It is time to cease being idealistic about idealism.

This article was originally published in the May 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.

The post The Deadly Perils of Predatory Idealism appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Revisionist history refers to the re-examination and reinterpretation of historical events, which can be done to correct inaccuracies, update understanding, or challenge prevailing narratives.

This just sounds like applying critical thinking to history.

What’s your take?

Doug Casey: The essence of critical thinking is to question every proposition and then investigating the answers for accuracy and logic. It’s important to pursue answers to their root causes and never accept things at face value.

The problem with history, certainly as it’s taught in schools, is that its many versions are presented as fact with no nuance. Looking at history is very much like examining an elephant, where one person feels a leg and thinks it’s a tree trunk, and another feels the elephant’s trunk and thinks it’s a snake.

It’s said that the CIA made up the term “revisionist history” during the 60s as an aid to debunking interpretations they didn’t like. The powers that be, the establishment, don’t like revisionism for at least two reasons.

Number one, a thorough investigation of history requires detailed and well-explained answers. That might uncover crimes involving powerful people. They might be imprisoned, bankrupted, or seriously embarrassed. Revisionist history can overthrow the ruling order, therefore rulers always oppose it.

Number two, it can overturn myth. Myth is a double-edged sword. It’s often a good thing because it can be a tie that binds a people together, even if it’s not true. However, reality and truth are usually better than myth in the long run. So, we shouldn’t be afraid of overturning myths, even if they’re useful.

In any event, much of standard history contains crimes that should be recognized. As Gibbon said, “History is indeed little more than a catalog of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.”

International Man: Why is there so much controversy and negative stigma associated with challenging widely accepted contemporary or historical events?

In a free society, shouldn’t that be considered healthy and necessary?

Doug Casey: Yes. But it’s never in the interests of the Establishment to uncover crimes or overturn favorable myths. Every country romances its history to present itself in the best light possible. The average guy just accepts what he’s told. As Sam Cooke’s song, “Wonderful World”, says: “Don’ know much about the Middle Ages, jus’ look at the pictures, and turn the pages.”

For instance, take the Revolutionary War. It wasn’t just a revolutionary war. It could be described as a war of secession, but people don’t like to describe it that way because that makes it comparable to the War Between the States, which was another war of secession.

Revisionist history shows that the Revolutionary War was also a civil war in which perhaps a third of the country’s population was on the side of the Crown. Only a third were rebels, and the other third were neutral. The Indians and many black slaves fought for the British. But that revelation compromises the nature of our national myth, and some people who hate the idea of America like to emphasize the negatives. I, for one, like our founding myths. But I also like truth and accuracy.

The same kind of problems arise to an even greater extent in the War Between the States—which itself is a Revisionist name for the Civil War. The myth is that it was fought to free the slaves. But that’s totally untrue. The slaves weren’t freed until the middle of the war, and then only in the southern states, not in the northern states. The main basis of the war was about taxation. And secondarily, about whether new territories could be admitted to the union as slave states.

The US government’s main source of income was import duties. But the South was paying the lion’s share of those import duties, which were raised significantly to protect northern manufacturers.

That was the major reason for the South seceding, not slavery. Slavery was highly controversial in both the North and South, but it wasn’t the reason for the war itself. Few talk about that because it seems more noble to have the victor be the good guy fighting to free slaves, as opposed to maintaining economic advantage.

You can’t maintain a free society unless you can debate about factual matters and what’s right and what’s wrong. However, teachers just repeat what the government says. And the narrative can change radically. Even as we speak, historic myths are being replaced by recently minted propaganda. We’re on the edge of seeing the statues of Washington and Jefferson replaced by those of George Floyd.

We’re not as bad by any means as China or the USSR, where the whole society was based on a lie, and it couldn’t even be questioned. But we’re moving in that direction with current views of political correctness and wokism.

International Man: The comedian Norm Macdonald once joked:

“It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?”

What are some historical examples of when the so-called “good guys” didn’t win?

Doug Casey: We all know the old aphorism, “I’m a freedom fighter. You are a rebel. He’s a terrorist.” It’s often a matter of perception. And the fact is that everyone thinks he’s a good guy.

Even the worst mass murderers like Alexander, Genghis Kahn, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao—all thought what they were doing was both good and necessary.

It’s a question of deciding who the good guys really are. Look at the battles between the Hatfields and the McCoys. They both thought they were on the right side of the issue. Or the wars between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Both sides had excellent arguments for killing each other.

It’s like the battle of the Alamo. Yes, the Americans were brave and fighting for something they believed in. But at the same time, the Mexican army was quite correct in trying to kick out invaders that were violating their territorial rights.

There are many examples like that. My own view is that the “good guys” are on the side of individual liberty and have a preference for non-violence.

International Man: Most people would agree with the phrase “the winners write the history books.”

However, when it comes to certain historical events, the same people would likely accuse you of being a dangerous extremist promoting hate crimes.

What do you make of this amazing display of cognitive dissonance?

Doug Casey: Well, it’s part and parcel of the study of history. Emotions get higher the closer we are to events. Especially where those who were involved are still alive. Major players in history are rarely saints; they usually have Machiavellian or Kissingerian morals. They’re inclined to cover up crimes or bad intentions. You’re not allowed to hold some views. If you do, you’re a heretic. And heretics are often burned at the stake.

Pearl Harbor is a good example. It’s now obvious that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese and was looking to force their hand and get them to attack. He was aware the attack was coming but was willing to sacrifice Pearl in order to make Americans righteously angry.

Yes, the Japanese were the aggressors. But at that point, they were being backed into a corner as the US cut off their oil and steel. People don’t want to believe that because they want to believe that the US is always in the right—we’re always the good guys. I’m sympathetic to that view, if only because the US is unique in having been founded on overtly libertarian principles. But that doesn’t mean its government always, or even usually, acts according to its principles.

The Kennedy assassination in 1963 is another example. I have no doubt that Oswald was a patsy. Who did it? I don’t know, but I suspect it was the CIA that Kennedy wanted to disband. It amounted to a coup d’etat. But, whatever the real facts are, they’ll never come out because it would make the US look like a banana republic, reveal criminals, and destroy more of our founding myth.

We really don’t know exactly who’s responsible for 9/11. All we know is the accepted narrative. There are all kinds of unanswered but obvious questions, like what actually happened to building number 7. Looking for the truth, even in the most intellectually honest matter, will get you accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

International Man: Given everything we’ve discussed today, what are the implications as the world is headed for its most chaotic period since WW2? What can the average person do to protect himself and even profit?

Doug Casey: There are at least three major disasters unfolding before our very eyes: the Ukraine, Gaza, and potentially Taiwan. And I’m afraid that the US government is on the wrong side of all of them.

The Russians were pushed into attacking the Ukraine much the way the Japanese were pushed into attacking Pearl Harbor. It’s a border war between Kiev and Moscow that has been blown way out of proportion. The US thinks it’s clever to sacrifice Ukrainian manpower to hurt Russia.

Gaza amounts to another type of border war, albeit one that’s been going on for about 3000 years. Who really owns Palestine, the Jews or the Arabs? Why is that a concern of the US?

As for Taiwan, I suspect historians will see a lot of similarities to what happened in Vietnam and Korea. In all three, the US gets involved in a conflict on the other side of the world in completely alien cultures, millions die, and there’s a huge amount of destruction.

In all these cases, Americans are writing history at the moment. But the US, which has transformed into a degenerate empire, is now on the wrong side of history. A hundred years from now, other powers will be writing the standard version of history—not us. But that doesn’t augur well for Americans in the here and now, that’s for sure.

So, what can the average person do to protect himself or even profit?

Plan your life around it being an unstable world. And in that kind of world, you want stable investments that won’t dry up and blow away.

I am a fan of two approaches. One includes owning gold and real estate—physical things. The second would be adopting the stance of a speculator to capitalize on the chaos that is definitely going to wash over the world in the near future.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Revisionist History and How the ‘Good Guys’ Don’t Always Win appeared first on LewRockwell.

“If one company or small group of people manages to develop godlike digital superintelligence, they could take over the world. At least when there’s an evil dictator, that human is going to die. But for an AI, there would be no death. It would live forever. And then you’d have an immortal dictator from which we can never escape.”—Elon Musk

The Deep State is not going away. It’s just being replaced.

Replaced not by a charismatic autocrat or even a shadowy bureaucracy, but by artificial intelligence (AI)—unfeeling, unaccountable, and immortal.

As we stand on the brink of a new technological order, the machinery of power is quietly shifting into the hands of algorithms.

Under Donald Trump’s watch, that shift is being locked in for at least a generation.

Trump’s latest legislative initiative—a 10-year ban on AI regulation buried within the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—strips state and local governments of the ability to impose any guardrails on artificial intelligence until 2035.

Despite bipartisan warnings from 40 state attorneys general, the bill passed the House and awaits Senate approval. It is nothing less than a federal green light for AI to operate without oversight in every sphere of life, from law enforcement and employment to healthcare, education, and digital surveillance.

This is not innovation.

This is institutionalized automation of tyranny.

This is how, within a state of algorithmic governance, code quickly replaces constitutional law as the mechanism for control.

We are rapidly moving from a society ruled by laws and due process to one ruled by software.

Algorithmic governance refers to the use of machine learning and automated decision-making systems to carry out functions once reserved for human beings: policing, welfare eligibility, immigration vetting, job recruitment, credit scoring, and judicial risk assessments.

In this regime, the law is no longer interpreted. It is executed. Automatically. Mechanically. Without room for appeal, discretion, or human mercy.

These AI systems rely on historical data—data riddled with systemic bias and human error—to make predictions and trigger decisions. Predictive policing algorithms tell officers where to patrol and whom to stop. Facial recognition technology flags “suspects” based on photos scraped from social media. Risk assessment software assigns threat scores to citizens with no explanation, no oversight, and no redress.

These algorithms operate in black boxes, shielded by trade secrets and protected by national security exemptions. The public cannot inspect them. Courts cannot challenge them. Citizens cannot escape them.

The result? A population sorted, scored, and surveilled by machinery.

This is the practical result of the Trump administration’s deregulation agenda: AI systems given carte blanche to surveil, categorize, and criminalize the public without transparency or recourse.

And these aren’t theoretical dangers—they’re already happening.

Examples of unchecked AI and predictive policing show that precrime is already here.

Once you are scored and flagged by a machine, the outcome can be life-altering—as it was for Michael Williams, a 65-year-old man who spent nearly a year in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. Williams was behind the wheel when a passing car fired at his vehicle, killing his 25-year-old passenger, who had hitched a ride.

Despite no motive, no weapon, and no eyewitnesses, police charged Williams based on an AI-powered gunshot detection program called ShotSpotter. The system picked up a loud bang near the area and triangulated it to Williams’ vehicle. The charge was ultimately dropped for lack of evidence.

This is precrime in action. A prediction, not proof. An algorithm, not an eyewitness.

Programs like ShotSpotter are notorious for misclassifying noises like fireworks and construction as gunfire. Employees have even manually altered data to fit police narratives. And yet these systems are being combined with predictive policing software to generate risk maps, target individuals, and justify surveillance—all without transparency or accountability.

It doesn’t stop there.

AI is now flagging families for potential child neglect based on predictive models that pull data from Medicaid, mental health, jail, and housing records. These models disproportionately target poor and minority families. The algorithm assigns risk scores from 1 to 20. Families and their attorneys are never told what the scores are, or that they were used.

Imagine losing your child to the foster system because a secret algorithm said you might be a risk.

This is how AI redefines guilt.

The Trump administration’s approach to AI regulation reveals a deeper plan to deregulate democracy itself.

Rather than curbing these abuses, the Trump administration is accelerating them.

An executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” signed by President Trump in early 2025, revoked prior AI safeguards, eliminated bias audits, and instructed agencies to prioritize “innovation” over ethics. The order encourages every federal agency to adopt AI quickly, especially in areas like policing and surveillance.

Under the guise of “efficiency,” constitutional protections are being erased.

Trump’s 10-year moratorium on AI regulation is the logical next step. It dismantles the last line of defense—state-level resistance—and ensures a uniform national policy of algorithmic dominance.

The result is a system in which government no longer governs. It processes.

The federal government’s AI expansion is building a surveillance state that no human authority can restrain.

Welcome to Surveillance State 2.0, the Immortal Machine.

Over 1700 uses of AI have already been reported across federal agencies, with hundreds directly impacting safety and rights. Many agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, are deploying AI for decision-making without public input or oversight.

This is what the technocrats call an “algocracy”—rule by algorithm.

In an algocracy, unelected developers and corporate contractors hold more power over your life than elected officials.

Your health, freedom, mobility, and privacy are subject to automated scoring systems you can’t see and can’t appeal.

And unlike even the most entrenched human dictators, these systems do not die. They do not forget. They are not swayed by mercy or reason. They do not stand for re-election.

They persist.

When AI governs by prediction, due process disappears in a haze of machine logic.

The most chilling effect of this digital regime is the death of due process.

What court can you appeal to when an algorithm has labeled you a danger? What lawyer can cross-examine a predictive model? What jury can weigh the reasoning of a neural net trained on flawed data?

You are guilty because the machine says so. And the machine is never wrong.

When due process dissolves into data processing, the burden of proof flips. The presumption of innocence evaporates. Citizens are forced to prove they are not threats, not risks, not enemies.

And most of the time, they don’t even know they’ve been flagged.

This erosion of due process is not just a legal failure—it is a philosophical one, reducing individuals to data points in systems that no longer recognize their humanity.

Writer and visionary Rod Serling warned of this very outcome more than half a century ago: a world where technology, masquerading as progress under the guise of order and logic, becomes the instrument of tyranny.

That future is no longer fiction. What Serling imagined is now reality.

The time to resist is now, before freedom becomes obsolete.

To those who call the shots in the halls of government, “we the people” are merely the means to an end.

“We the people”—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Serling, “has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.”

In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

“The Obsolete Man,” a story arc about the erasure of individual worth by a mechanized state, underscores the danger of rendering humans irrelevant in a system of cold automation and speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete.

As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.”

Like Serling’s totalitarian state, our future will be defined by whether we conform to a dehumanizing machine order—or fight back before the immortal dictator becomes absolute.

We now face a fork in the road: resist the rise of the immortal dictator or submit to the reign of the machine.

This is not a battle against technology, but a battle against the unchecked, unregulated, and undemocratic use of technology to control people.

We must demand algorithmic transparency, data ownership rights, and legal recourse against automated decisions. We need a Digital Bill of Rights that guarantees:

• The right to know how algorithms affect us.
• The right to challenge and appeal automated decisions.
• The right to privacy and data security.
• The right to be free from automated surveillance and predictive policing.
• The right to be forgotten.

Otherwise, AI becomes the ultimate enforcer of a surveillance state from which there is no escape.

As Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, warned: “We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about. Your digital identity will live forever… because there’s no delete button.”

An immortal dictator, indeed.

Let us be clear: the threat is not just to our privacy, but to democracy itself.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the time to fight back is now—before the code becomes law, and freedom becomes a memory.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post The Algocracy Agenda: How AI and the Deep State Are Digitizing Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Sen. Ron Johnson: What’s Really in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ and Uncovering the Truth About 9-11 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Colorful career criminal Willie Sutton once may (or may not) have been asked why he robbed banks. “Because that is where the money is,” he supposedly replied. A similar principle may explain the first foreign trip of President Donald J. Trump’s second term, which was not to a traditional U.S. ally in Europe. Rather, he set off to visit the capitals of the Gulf hydrocarbon potentates Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. In royal palaces there, he feasted and was offered hundreds of billions of dollars in investments in American companies and opportunities for the Trump Organization, too. Qatar even courted controversy by giving him a $400 million Boeing 747-8 plane to serve as a future Air Force One.

And the publicity was regal. Strikingly missing, however, was a side trip to Israel or any evident consultations with the extremist government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Instead, Israel was frozen out and blindsided by Trump’s pronouncements. On the eve of his trip, the president took the Israelis by surprise when he abruptly announced that he would halt his (costly and fruitless) bombing campaign against the Houthis of Yemen. Israeli leaders then had to listen to Trump proclaim that the U.S. “has no stronger partner” than Saudi Arabia, with which he brokered a $142 billion deal for American arms. The United Arab Emirates has a sovereign wealth fund of $2.2 trillion, while Saudi Arabia’s is $1.1 trillion and that country’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, has already deposited $2 billion of it in the investment firm of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund has $526 billion. And such sums don’t even include those countries’ vast currency reserves, earned by selling petroleum and fossil gas.

And in that single, several-day trip, President Trump managed to realign U.S. Middle Eastern policy to center on — and yes, it should be capitalized! — an Axis of the Plutocrats, Gulf sheikhs who are using their galactic fortunes to reshape the region from Libya to Sudan, Egypt to Syria, and who are hungrily eyeing new investment opportunities in areas like the emerging artificial intelligence industry.

Syria: A Very Strong Background

Oh, and while he was traveling Trump revealed that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s bin Salman had indeed convinced him to lift American sanctions on Syria, a step distinctly opposed by the Israelis. While in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, he even held a surprise meeting with fundamentalist Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara, who had once led an al-Qaeda affiliate. Asked about whether the Israelis opposed the step, Trump replied, “I don’t know. I didn’t ask them about that.” In fact, the Associated Press reported that, in an April meeting with Trump, Netanyahu had specifically pleaded with him not to lift those sanctions on Syria, since he claimed he feared that the new fundamentalist government there might eventually stage an attack on Israel.

Trump appears to have been entirely unmoved by Netanyahu’s plea. After meeting al-Shara in Riyadh, the president summed up his view of the former guerrilla and supporter of hardline Salafi Islam this way: “Young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” On recognizing Damascus’s new government and issuing a waiver on those congressionally mandated sanctions, Trump observed, “Now it’s their time to shine… So, I say, ‘Good luck, Syria.’ Show us something very special.” It’s worth noting that al-Shara claims he wants good relations with all his country’s neighbors and is open to peace with Israel.

You wouldn’t know it from Netanyahu’s heated rhetoric, but during the Syrian civil war of the last decade, Israel did give medical help to the Support Front (Jabhat al-Nusra) that al-Shara founded and led when it was fighting against Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial regime. Since al-Shara’s group sometimes persecuted the heterodox Druze minority in Syria, this step outraged Israel’s own Druze minority, some of whom at one point attacked an ambulance taking a wounded Syrian rebel to an Israeli hospital, while the group’s leaders lobbied Netanyahu to cease aiding the al-Qaeda-linked outfit.

Netanyahu’s recent suggestions to Trump that al-Shara, now in control of much of Syria, poses a threat to Israel, were therefore wholly disingenuous. Moreover, the jackboot is entirely on the other foot. As soon as the revolution in Damascus succeeded, Netanyahu ordered an orgy of destruction, bombing naval ships in the Syrian port of Latakia and military installations across the country, leaving Syria virtually helpless. Israeli troops then marched into Syria, occupying swathes of its territory and taking control of a dam that supplies 40% of its water. Israeli far-right cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich then pledged that Israel’s multi-front war of expansion there would only end when Syria was — you couldn’t put it more bluntly than this — “dismantled.”

Now, Israeli analysts not only fear a resurgent Syria but also worry that since Erdogan has Trump’s ear on Syrian policy, he will be emboldened. Turkey, after all, backed the rebel group that has now taken power and is their main international sponsor. Turkish fighter jets are already operating in northern Syrian air space, and Israel’s attempt to establish hegemony over its southern regions is endangered by Turkish claims that, going back to Ottoman times, Syria has always been in its sphere of influence.

Iran: No Nuclear Dust

Trump also sidelined Netanyahu during his trip by continuing to press for a new nuclear deal with Iran. His Gulf Arab hosts showed a collective enthusiasm for the ongoing talks and Trump revealed that Qatar’s ruler, Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani, had indeed lobbied him to begin direct discussions with Iran. The Gulf Arab monarchies fear being caught in the crossfire of any future American-Israeli war with Iran. The leaders of Qatar and the other Gulf states are anxious that the (all too literal) fallout from any aerial strikes on enriched nuclear materials in Iran could drift onto their populations, affecting their water supplies. Trump tried to reassure his hosts that “we’re not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran,” adding that he wanted to try negotiations first in hopes of forestalling any such outcome.

During both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, Washington’s pitch to the Gulf Arab states was that they should recognize Israel, do business with it, and form a military alliance with it against Iran. Jared Kushner succeeded in making this argument to the postage-stamp Gulf countries of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which signed the Abraham Accords with Israel on September 15, 2020.

However, Kushner and then-President Biden failed to bring Saudi Arabia aboard. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman resisted going on a war footing with Iran, especially after the devastating 2019 attack by that country or one of its proxies on the Kingdom’s Abqaiq refinery, which underlined Riyadh’s vulnerability. Not surprisingly, then, in March 2023, the Saudi foreign minister joined his Iranian counterpart in Beijing, where the two countries restored diplomatic relations and began deconfliction talks.

Once Israel launched its total war on the Gazan population in October 2023, bin Salman could hardly sign on to the Abraham Accords. In the region, it would have looked as if he were helping to destroy the Palestinian Arabs while putting a target on Iran, one of the Palestinians’ few remaining state champions. Unlike Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia has a substantial citizen population — some 19 million people — whose opinions the government has to be at least a little bit anxious about, especially since the blood of the average Saudi is indeed boiling at the daily atrocities being committed by Israel in Gaza. Last year, bin Salman’s office leaked to Politico that he feared he would be assassinated if he recognized Israel under such grim circumstances and he insisted on the need for an independent Palestinian state (which seemed to get Washington off his back on the issue).

In addition, Trump appears to have developed the same fascination that possessed Barack Obama when it comes to “opening” Iran the way Richard Nixon once opened China. Nothing, of course, could be more unwelcome in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment facilities (though Western intelligence agencies do not believe that country actually has a nuclear weapons program). In an April meeting, Trump informed Netanyahu that he wanted to try negotiations before anybody attacked Iran and pointedly gave the prime minister a copy of his book The Art of the Deal.

Qatar: A Fundamental Role

If Qatar did convince Trump to try negotiating with Iran, then Sheikh Tamim won a major round in the contest for influence with the American president. It was a victory in keeping with Doha’s longstanding regional role as a mediator and seeker of peaceful solutions to conflict. And the rise of Qatari influence is another blow to Netanyahu, who has attempted to sideline the Gulf gas giant even though he was happy to make use of its services.

Since Hamas’s bloodthirsty October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, elements of the Israeli government and its supporters have attempted to blame Qatar for supposedly supporting and bankrolling Hamas. The allegations are breathtakingly false and serve as a smokescreen for Hamas’s actual patron (in a manner of speaking), Netanyahu himself. They were aimed, however, precisely at turning Qatar into a distrusted regional pariah, a ploy that has so far failed spectacularly.

That the fundamentalist Hamas movement came to power at the ballot box in Gaza in 2006 and could not be dislodged struck Netanyahu as a potential blessing. The bad blood between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) on the West Bank left Palestinians politically divided. Netanyahu made that very rivalry a pretext for preventing the establishment of a state for the five million stateless Palestinians under Israeli occupation. He put severe import-export restrictions on Gaza but otherwise allowed Hamas to run it as its own fiefdom. Hamas rocket fire from time to time (which seldom did any real damage) was a price Netanyahu was then willing to pay. He had a close associate act as a go-between regarding transfers of money from Qatar and Egypt into Gaza for civilian aid and administration. From 2021 on, Egypt and Qatar deposited aid money for Gaza civilian reconstruction in an Israeli bank account, and then Israel transferred it to the Gazans.

That’s right: Bibi Netanyahu was once functionally Gaza’s comptroller. Moreover, in 2011-2012, the Obama administration asked Qatar to host members of the Hamas civilian politbureau so that they could take part in indirect negotiations with both the U.S. and Israel. The favor Qatar did for Washington and Tel Aviv, however, would prove burdensome to its diplomacy. In 2018, the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim, grew so frustrated with Hamas that he decided to kick its officials out and cease sending aid to Gaza. Terrified that his divide-and-rule approach to the Palestinians might be jeopardized, Netanyahu frantically dispatched the head of the Israeli intelligence outfit Mossad to Qatar to plead with the emir to continue the arrangement.

In 2020, The Times of Israel revealed that Mossad head Yossi Cohen had written a letter to Tamim about the Gaza money transfers, saying: “This aid has undoubtedly played a fundamental role in achieving the continued improvement of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and ensuring stability and security in the region.” As late as 2023, other Israeli government officials were still sending similar messages, according to that paper. The subsequent attempt of the Netanyahu government to shift blame for its disgraceful Gaza policy onto Qatar has struck few seasoned observers as plausible.

Regarding Trump’s recent visit, the Israeli genocide in Gaza was the one outstanding issue on which Gulf leaders appear to have made little headway. After a roundtable with Qatari business leaders, the president said of Gaza, “Let the United States get involved and make it just a freedom zone.” These remarks, wholly detached from reality, did not clarify whether he still agreed with Netanyahu on a plan to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, which no one in the Arab Gulf could accept. In any case, insiders say Trump is frustrated that Netanyahu doesn’t “wrap up” the war, but that the president has not exerted the pressure necessary to stop it.

A Stark Pivot

Trump’s foreign policy trip marked a stark pivot away from what had long been a neoconservative version of Middle Eastern policymaking in Washington. In the era of President George W. Bush, some officials typically argued that Israel was Washington’s only reliable democratic partner in the Middle East and that all policy in the region should be organized around that reality. In the process, of course, they downplayed the plight of the Palestinians, claiming in 2002 that peace would only come in the region when the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown. They gradually developed a rhetoric for stuffing Washington’s version of democracy down the gullets of Middle Eastern regimes — at the point of a gun, if necessary. They either marginalized Arab regimes or sought to scare them into an alliance with Israel. Their ultimate goal then was a war on Iran that would overthrow the government there. “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran,” they used to proclaim in a creepy combination of male chauvinism and juvenile jingoism.

Trump’s own regime is, of course, not free of either toxic masculinity or a jejune hyper-nationalism. However, unlike Bush and the neocons, the 47th president seems uninterested in kicking off long, debilitating foreign wars, which his base has come to hate. Still, think of him, at least in part, as Trump of Arabia. Of course, he’s mainly interested in making money for himself and his wealthy backers there. If Israel gets in the way of deal-making with the Gulf plutocrats, it could become an annoyance that Trump might feel he can’t afford. So far, however, the president seems unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to end the genocide and position the Middle East and the U.S. for prosperity, leaving us all in limbo with only a new Trump Tower in Dubai to show for it.

The post Is Trump’s Axis of the Plutocrats Marginalizing Israel? appeared first on LewRockwell.