Lew Rockwell Institute

Nick Fuentes has said things no Catholic should defend. Lines the Church has long drawn, he has crossed. This cannot be excused, and it shouldn’t be erased. But once that is admitted, a harder truth remains: his rise poses questions the faithful can’t shrug away.

At 27, he commands a vast audience. His attachment to Catholic doctrine appears genuine. He defends marriage with conviction, champions family without apology, and pushes back on the cultural war against Christian belief with a bluntness many bishops avoid.

There’s the dilemma. On one side, he is an articulate advocate for truths Catholics hold dear. On the other, he is a man with baggage that contradicts those same truths.

The media opts for caricature over clarity. In their telling, Fuentes is painted as a pure villain, a mix of Hitler and Richard Spencer. His listeners are treated as nothing more than bigots, and any Catholic who engages is branded complicit. But the Church has never lived in simple sketches. The challenge has always been knowing what to do with them. Why, then, are young Catholic men drawn to him?

Because he confronts what others dodge. He slams immigration policies that break working families. He denounces foreign wars that enrich contractors and bury children. He defends masculinity in a culture that mocks it. He calls out elites who preach inclusion while excluding Catholics. These are real grievances. He voices them loudly and unapologetically.

Young men like myself feel targeted by the culture. They hear “toxic” attached to masculinity and “oppressive” glued to tradition. They see crime facts dismissed when they cut against the script. They watch their demographic blamed for everything while others are shielded.

Fuentes meets their frustration with data and defiance, magnetic even when he wanders where Catholics cannot follow. He can be bold in truth yet brutal in tone. He critiques feminism with flashes of cruelty. He calls out crime with words that can veer into prejudice. He marries clarity with corrosion, forcing Catholics to sift the wheat from the weeds.

That is the task. Progressives dismiss him outright, pretending nothing he says holds truth. Many conservatives wave him off as a “weird” guy in a basement. Both are wrong. We live in an age of absolutes, yet the Church cannot afford to abandon nuance.

A Catholic approach demands more charity and more clarity. We do not judge a soul only by its worst sentence; we judge the whole arc—repentance, amendment, the fruits that follow. I am not calling for a wholehearted embrace. But folded arms and moral tutting won’t work either. Fuentes isn’t fading. Quite the opposite, in fact. He is growing more influential by the day.

And amid the noise, there is a note of grace. Though he and Charlie Kirk were vocal opponents, when Kirk was killed, Fuentes offered only condolences to Erika and the children—and prayers. Some say, “So what? That’s the least he could do.” True. But if he were only chasing clicks, he could have taken a cheaper, crueler road. He didn’t. In an era when social media amplifies the foolishness of youth and rewards immorality, that restraint matters. He now speaks a little slower, a little more carefully—not perfect, but human, someone capable of change.

So the questions for Catholics are practical. Can we critique feminism without sinking into outright misogyny? Can we oppose unjust wars without chasing crazy conspiracies? Can we face demographic change without losing charity? Can we defend borders while still seeing neighbors? I believe we can. These are the questions Fuentes forces onto the table, and they are questions we should all wrestle with.

Catholic teaching is clear. Good ends never justify evil means. Human dignity is not a bargaining chip. National pride must never eclipse the brotherhood we share in Christ.

This tension won’t vanish. The Fuentes moment forces a choice: Can we take what is factual without baptizing what is fictional? Can we accept what is useful without excusing what is harmful? The Church has faced this before. Sinners became saints. Great minds still had blind spots. The faithful are sorted carefully, with patience and prayer.

This requires spiritual maturity, not partisan zeal. It requires critical thinking. It means separating the message from the messenger and sense from insult. Politics demands loyalty to a tribe. Faith asks for something more complex: to reject hatred without shutting out what is right and to correct error without killing hope.

Should Catholics engage with Fuentes? Yes—carefully. Engagement is not endorsement. We need to exercise prudence, not fangirling; fraternal correction, not fawning applause.

In the end, the Fuentes question is less about him than about us. How do we remain faithful when leaders fail? How do we resist a hostile culture without losing Christian compassion? How do we defend a civilization worth saving without sawing at its Christian foundations?

We have all sinned; Fuentes has sinned, perhaps more than most. He has said what should not be said. Yet he is young, and youth can learn. If he is serious about the Faith, repentance can take root and bear fruit.

The Church should neither canonize nor cancel. Instead, we must watch, test, correct, and pray. Refuse the lie; keep what is good. And judge, as the Church always has, by conversion, by actions, and by the evidence of a changed life—step by step.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Nick Fuentes Dilemma for Catholics appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Safe and effective.” That was the phrase often repeated by people trying to maximize the injections of coronavirus “vaccine” shots during the coronavirus scare. This claim about the shots was wrong. The shots turned out instead to be dangerous and ineffective.

Unfortunately, many people went along with the powerful propaganda push, taking the shots. Yet, with time there was increasing recognition of the misrepresentation about these shots, and that helped open many people’s eyes to the possibility that assertions regarding benefits of other pharmaceuticals, and vaccines in particular, may also be dangerously misleading.

During the coronavirus scare, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. played a prominent role in challenging the favorable claims about the coronavirus shots. Now, as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), he is leading the government department to take a close look at the claimed benefits of the many shots on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) childhood vaccine schedule that schools and daycares across America require children to be subjected to as a condition for attendance.

A video presentation Kennedy released this week that takes a significant step in revealing the nature of the vaccines review at HHS. In particular, Kennedy in the video challenged the widely disseminated conclusion that the mass use of the various vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule caused the elimination or major reduction of deaths from the diseases the respective vaccines target — a measure that the vaccines were particularly effective in accomplishing their stated objectives.

While displaying graphs of the deaths over time caused by various diseases targeted by vaccines, Kenndey demonstrated in the video presentation that the mass use of each of several vaccines came after the targeted disease’s deaths had already had a huge decline. Kennedy provided measles, pertussis (whooping cough), and influenza shots as examples. Further, noted Kennedy, there were similar huge declines in deaths from tuberculosis, scurvy, and scarlet fever over a similar timeline event though there was no mass vaccination for these diseases in America.

Factors independent of vaccines or other medical interventions, Kennedy explained, were the main causes of the decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. Vaccines were trumpeted as the solution, but the health improvement heroes were in reality other factors including the development of food refrigeration, quickened transportation of food, and improved sanitation, concluded Kennedy.

The logical childhood vaccine schedule changes to be taken in response to the observations put forward by Kennedy in his video presentation are significant. If some of the shots on the schedule have no efficacy, they should be removed from the schedule. The reason that has been made for giving them has been a fraud or mistake. If other shots have much less efficacy than has been asserted but still do some good against the targeted diseases, a reevaluation should be made comparing those shots’ benefits and risks — comparing the shots’ efficacy and danger. With a much lower efficacy, the shots should be judged as acceptable to give only if they have an even lower harm risk.

The end result of this analysis can be expected to be a substantial shrinking of the childhood vaccine schedule in which the variety and number of shots has expanded several-fold over the last few decades. Indeed, the ultimate conclusion could even be that the schedule should be rescinded.

The new analysis Kennedy discussed in his video presentation should also provide additional momentum for abolishing government efforts to either mandate that people take or put any pressure on people to take pharmaceuticals. Government has proven itself a cavalier and dangerous bearer of such authority. Let’s end the authoritarian practice for good.

This article was originally published on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post HHS Secretary Kennedy Challenges the Efficacy of Childhood Vaccine Schedule Shots appeared first on LewRockwell.

Editor’s note: under the new pontificate of Pope Leo, we will now publish this monthly reminder of the proven, time-tested method to end heresy and the responsibility of every bishop for this, the “greatest act of charity.”

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

Masculine Courage

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

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

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

Less Words, More Action

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

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

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

The Case of Notre Dame

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

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

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

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

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

The Only Way Forward: the Charitable Anathema

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Whole Article

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

“The true measure of a nation’s power isn’t found in its politics or economy, but in the most overlooked factor of all: its geography. We reveal how the United States won the geographic lottery and compare its advantages to the immense physical challenges facing Russia, China, and Africa. By the end, you’ll understand how the land itself predetermines which countries rise and fall, and why a nation’s fate is ultimately written on the map.”

The post Outstanding Brief Documentary: America Will Be the Last Superpower, Here’s Why appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post ‘Hot Spots’ – Where Will Trump Strike Next? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

For those who couldn’t attend the Peace and Freedom Rally held in Kingston NY on September 27, 2025, the video can be watched on YouTube. Speakers were Scott Ritter, Dennis Kucinich, Judge Napolitano, Ray McGovern, event organizer Gerald Celente, Garland Nixon, Joe Laurie and Diane Sare.

The post Peace and Freedom Rally Kingston NY September 27, 2025 appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

Which country is leading the charge against the Gaza genocide?

See here.

The post South African Ambassador Dies from Hotel Plunge appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

HI Lew,

Thanks for publishing my stories and articles, links, and comments. You are very kind. Your cause is good at Mises and LRC. I hope you can continue the fight. I find myself losing interest in DC antics, media lies, and especially Trump’s insanity. It makes me almost miss Biden’s senility. The circus, the barkers, the clowns, the athletes, and the freaks are all starting to bore me and drive me kinda crazy. Will someone please turn off that Circus Calliope? It is giving me a headache.

The post Circus Calliope? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Tim McGraw.

Timmy Tae’s Thoughts

The post Fleet Week, Seattle, 1980s appeared first on LewRockwell.

Joy Reid warns Americans of MAGA plans: “No income tax, no regulations, earn as much as you want, and leave it to your children with no taxes, that’s the world they want.” That actually sounds like a free society. Unfortunately, it is not a MAGA society, which also includes high tariffs, increased military action at home and abroad, and a doubling down of the drug war.

The post Too Bad This Is Not What MAGA Republicans Really Want appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Bill Madden

See this and this.

The post Bill Extraordinarily Bullish for Gold & Silver -Craig Hemke appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

Got nothing against eye candy, but it is a bit inconsistent with the TPUSA Erika, I should say. She could be illustrating “I Like My Women a Little on the Trashy Side.”  

But as they say, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” except that it’s on a YouTube video.

The post The REAL Erika Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

BREAKING: Tyler Robinson CONFIRMED To Be In A CIA Advanced Program For College Students- The Center For Anticipatory Intelligence- As His Defense Considers Waiving The Preliminary Hearing

“If His Lawyers Waive The Preliminary Hearing, Then I Would Say That Tyler Robinson Is In A… pic.twitter.com/Hfzsku6Uf9

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) September 29, 2025

The post Tyler Robinson was CIA appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Infowars

The post Alex Jones now showing video of brown shirted assassin appeared first on LewRockwell.

Chun Pan wrote:

I have been following the progress of the “Global Sumud Flotilla” with intensity. 

The Global Sumud Flotilla is a flotilla of 47 ships sailing to Gaza with humanitarian supplies.  It is within 3-4 days of reaching Gaza.

The confrontation with the Israeli military is imminent.  However, the flotilla is currently protected by warships from Spain and Italy.  Hopefully, these two naval warships will increase the likelihood of success of this mission.

I am truly amazed by the courage of the over 600 humanitarians on these vessels.

To follow the progress of this mission, please go to their website at:

https://globalsumudflotilla.org/

The post The Global Sumud Flotilla is a flotilla of 47 ships sailing to Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

The news has been filled with reports of assassinations, attempted assassinations, and shootings targeted against law enforcement. The spate of political violence has seriously eroded America’s legitimacy as a moral and decent state. How did we get here?

U.S. state violence on the world stage may help explain the rise of political violence here at home.

The idea of political assassination gained traction with the U.S. intelligence services during World War II, which was viewed (somewhat understandably) as an existential struggle that justified any act, however illegal, that was necessary for the cause.

During the Cold War, that mindset continued, but the illegal killing was hidden because it was inconsistent with the shining-city-on-the-hill propaganda. Certain intelligence agencies secretly supported a number of high-profile political assassinations, such as the 1961 killing of Prime Minister Patrice Lamumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the 1963 killing of President Diem of South Vietnam, not to mention a number of attempts to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba. These killings were presented as organic local forces rising up against “corrupt” leaders. Then and now, any leader who was disobedient to the U.S. regime was by definition “corrupt.”

Because of embarrassing press reports of the CIA and FBI’s illegal operations in and out of the United States, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed in 1975 to investigate the abuses of power and direct harm to U.S. citizens. It was conveniently called the Church Committee after the chairman, Frank Church of Idaho.

The nation was shocked by what was revealed, including operations such as MKULTRA, a mind control experiment on unwitting U.S. citizens who were subjected to destabilizing drug exposure and other abuse. It is believed that much of the really appalling MKULTRA information was hidden and destroyed. Americans also learned about COINTELPRO (acronym for Counter Intelligence Program), a series of  FBI operations aimed to disrupt and harm American anti-war and civil rights groups. The committee also uncovered operations performing illegal assassinations.

For two years, the Church Committee uncovered many disgusting abuses and recommended oversight and controls to end them. But it was not long before the oversight and controls faded.

In 1986, the Iran–Contra scandal exploded and exposed the Reagan administration, which had funneled arms through Israel to our “enemy” Iran to provide funds for anti-communist guerrilla  operations in Central America. It was a huge scandal, and there were indications that it was also a money laundering operation to support other illegal behavior by intel agencies. These embarrassing revelations caused the agencies to be more careful.

The first Gulf War led to the U.S. stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a long term goal of the ZioCons and a provocation to many Muslims in the region.

Then came the big enchilada: The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington birthed the Global War on Terror.

The previous existential threat of the Cold War had fizzled out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This new existential threat provided the excuse to invade and wreck a number of nations the ZioCons had had in their sights for decades. Who could argue against fighting terrorists?

Since the GWOT was deemed existential, the George W. Bush administration saw fit to torture and kill suspected terrorists without any due process. Not wanting to be accused of sympathy for terrorists, many politicians and media figures held their tongues or even actively supported the White House. As a result, the U.S. regime’s policy morphed from secretly murdering people to bragging about the number of suspected terrorists killed.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Normalization of Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

How do you find your way home when you’re lost and far away? Where do you start? In wilderness survival training, it’s “head downhill.” That will bring you to water, and water will bring you to civilization.

Let’s look at the last two weeks:

1. Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
2. Bombing alleged fentanyl boats heading to the US.
3. Copycat (from Kirk’s assassin, bullet writing) shootings at ICE.
4. Acetaminophen (in some 500 brands, most prominently Tylenol) links to autism.
5. National Guard deployed to cities for crime control.
6. National reading studies: half of Americans are functionally illiterate.
7. AI partners induce psychosis and suicide.
8. Illinois honors student sues a public high school for her illiteracy.
9. RFK, Jr. fires and reorganizes the ACIP board.
10. Florida stops ALL vaccine mandates.

I irritated conservative friends a few days ago by disagreeing with Trump’s bombing of alleged fentanyl boats. What happens when the government decides compost-grown tomatoes are dangerous? Bombing compost piles? A government that can keep me from ingesting fentanyl and methamphetamine can keep me from ingesting raw milk or homemade charcuterie.

As I head downhill in this societal wilderness, I find commonalities in our lostness. More than 80 percent of first-time illicit drug use occurs in public schools. We’re paying $16,000 per student per year and getting a 50 percent functional illiteracy rate. And now we have pregnant women jiving on TikTok binging on Tylenol, and my taxes are supposed to pay for the consequences of that irresponsible behavior? And I’m supposed to pay for the dysfunction of failing public schools? And AI-induced psychosis? And assassins inspired by “gestapo” and “Nazi” and “Fascists” spewed from the mouths of Godless pagans?

How do we find our way home? I suggest it starts by changing our governmental obligations from care to responsibility. How do you develop responsible people? You do it by making them bear the consequences of their decisions. You don’t exercise discernment muscles by making decisions for them or promising to pick up the pieces for bad-decision collateral damage.

My heart breaks for dysfunction, but as terrible as it is, we can’t find our way home if we keep wandering without a plan. So here’s a plan.

1. Eliminate all government funding for education, from kindergarten to college; no college grants; that drops 80 percent of first-time drug use. Colleges have to fund themselves.
2. Eliminate all government health advice; let folks find their own path. Yes, eliminate the Dept. of Health and Human Services; let us find our own way, thank you very much.
3. Eliminate all government involvement in health care; folks can decide what they want and shop, learn, and share their own findings. Wouldn’t it be neat if TikTok shared various positives and negatives about competing therapies? Think how informed we’d become.
4. Legalize all drugs; if you mess up your life with drugs, you can suffer the consequences. No government agency will help you pick up the pieces. No Medicare; no Medicaid; no doctor licensing; it’s all privatized on the free market; no government manipulation, corruption, fraud, and extortion, no prescription licenses.
5. Eliminate the IRS and go to a 10 percent flat tax. If 10 percent is good enough for God’s tithe, it should be good enough for society.
6. Cut the federal government by 90 percent; pay off the debt; bring back sound money backed by gold; no more government borrowing, period. Like a business, the government must live within its means.
7. Eliminate prisons and institute Singapore’s caning punishment; fast and cheap.
8. Shut down every foreign military base; bring our boys and girls home.
9. Food Emancipation Proclamation–let neighbors transact food commerce without asking the government’s permission.
10. Eliminate zoning laws so folks can generate income from their properties without bribing government officials.
11. Eliminate all government grants, loans, aid, etc. Foreign and domestic, from agriculture to ammunition.
12. Extend voting privileges ONLY to folks who pay more to the governnment (taxes) than they receive in benefits; these are the true stakeholders of a culture and the only ones truly invested in its overall functionality.

This is not a comprehensive list, but you get the overall drift. What we need is MARA–Make Americans RESPONSIBLE Again. How do we do that? We make ourselves live with the consequences of our decisions. That’s the way home. America was great when the government was smaller. The bigger the government, the smaller we as a people become.

What I see instead are rabbit trails of little tweaks here and there, but the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the sick get sicker and the have-nots proliferate because nobody ever told them it’s up to them. Sometimes the best hand up is a swift kick in reality’s seat of the pants. No free lunch. Make your own destiny. I’m glad to help you, but pick up your feet if I’m carrying you. God don’t make no junk, so quit acting like you’re junk. And government, quit incentivizing junk behavior and junk decisions.

What do you consider the first “downhill way home” path?

This article was originally published on Brownstone Institute.

The post The Way Home appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump has said on several occasions that he supports the death penalty for drug dealers. His recent actions show that the death penalty he seeks is not the result of an arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, and sentencing. He prefers the death penalty by extrajudicial murder.

Back in 2018, Trump said during a phone call with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte: “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem. Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that.”

This is the Rodrigo Duterte who was just charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) with “violent acts including murder to be committed against alleged criminals, including alleged drug dealers and users.” He is now being held at an ICC detention facility in the Netherlands.

On September 2, Trump ordered the U.S. military to conduct “a kinetic strike” against “terrorists” in “international waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.” Eleven “terrorists” were killed, but “no U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike.” Trump declared: “Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

On September 15, Trump announced that the U.S. military destroyed a second boat in international waters “trafficking illicit narcotics.” A third lethal strike was carried out on another boat on September 19.

Regardless of how one feels about whether marijuana or other drugs should be legal for medical or recreational use, Trump’s actions are simply extrajudicial murder. There was no search, seizure, arrest, indictment, arraignment, prosecution, trial, conviction, or sentencing. There is no proof of what exactly was on the boat. Neither the boat nor its occupants posed any threat to the United States. The boat was in international waters and nowhere near American territory. Violating drug laws is not a death-penalty offense. Nevertheless, Trump took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Oh, but Trump didn’t kill anyone. Correct. He just ordered his personal attack force of the U.S. military to kill for him. But drug smuggling is a criminal offense, not an act of war that requires a response by the U.S. military.

If Trump can order the execution of people in international waters who are not even violating U.S. drug laws, then what is to stop him from ordering the execution of people in the United States who are actually violating U.S. drug laws?

Conservatives—including many conservative Christians—generally support Trump’s extrajudicial murder because they have the simplistic mindset of drugs: bad, military: good.

Trump’s actions are excused by the vast majority of conservatives because he labeled the people murdered by the U.S. military as “narco-terrorists.” But the war on drugs is just as bogus as the war on terrorism. They are both reasons why Americans increasingly live in a national security, police state instead of a free society. The real narco-terrorists are the military personnel who murder for Trump.

This is yet another reason why Americans—and especially American Christians—should not join the military. If you join the military, there is no guarantee that you won’t be ordered to murder for Donald Trump. Just like there was no guarantee that you wouldn’t have been ordered to murder for George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden.

If you join the military, you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders and to help carry out a reckless, belligerent, and interventionist U.S. foreign policy. You will not be defending the country, the Constitution, or American freedoms. You will be part of the president’s personal attack force and a pawn in the hands of Uncle Sam.

Yet, criticism of the military is seen by most Americans as criticism of America itself, as Jeffrey Polet, director of the Ford Leadership Forum at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation recently said:

In contemporary America, one complains about the size and status of the military to one’s own peril. We are constantly asked to defer to the militarization of our daily lives, from flyovers at ball games to military salutes at public concerts to allowing military personnel to board planes before us—throughout even our daily lives, we are slowly bent at the knee. We now find ourselves in a world where to criticize the military is to criticize America itself, and thus it goes with empires.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

The post Murderers for Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

“If you catch 100 red fire ants as well as 100 large black ants, and put them in a jar, at first, nothing will happen. However, if you violently shake the jar and dump them back on the ground the ants will fight until they eventually kill each other. The thing is, the red ants think the black ants are the enemy and vice versa, when in reality, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. This is exactly what’s happening in society today. The real question we need to be asking ourselves is who’s shaking the jar… and why?”

The above observation by Shera Starr cannot be improved upon.

And yet, the answer to the question is fairly simple.

But let’s first take a look at this anomaly. It’s natural to identify with some individuals more than others. That tendency occurred before Homo sapiens came into being. In addition, the tendency for animals to group into families or packs also predates humans.

We tend to want to be around those who behave the way we do and have the same perceptions as we do. That only makes sense. We wish to surround ourselves with those who are unlikely to surprise and possibly even endanger us by behaving in a fashion that we would not ourselves choose.

This is the basis of trust – an essential in group or herd mentality. And being a part of a group or herd brings to us increased safety.

So, what then, of those who are not within our group or herd? How do we relate to them?

Well, any nature programme that covers animals gathered around a water hole can provide that answer.

We see a small group of wild pigs drinking alongside a group of wildebeests. Neither species is predatory, so they learn to recognise that, even though one group is made up of savannah-living grazers and the other are forest-living foragers, they can easily co-exist, which will increase the ability of both species to use the water hole at the same time.

We might also see a group of hyenas using the water hole, but we notice that the prey animals all seek to keep a distance between themselves and the predatory hyenas. Everyone understands that they are all at the water hole for the same reason and it makes sense to share, even if, in another situation, they are natural enemies.

In fact, in most of nature, we see that species adapt to a condition of mutual tolerance in order to be able to coexist.

No surprise, then, that Homo sapiens got on the mutual tolerance bandwagon in its formative stages and, for the most part, has remained that way.

But it is also true that predators develop dual habits. They may exercise tolerance at the water hole, but at some point, they mean to make a meal of their water hole neighbours.

And when doing so, many species create associations with others of their kind to hunt.

This, too, is true of humans. Most of humanity seeks to live in a spirit of cooperation with others.

In the countryside, people erect walls and fences to establish boundaries, then find it expedient to respect such divisions in order to live in peace. Even in cities, people who live cheek by jowl in the same building respect each other’s privacy for the most part. Even if they do not become friends, they either remain polite or ignore each other.

Although there are always exceptions, for the most part, mankind behaves in a manner that is based upon “getting along.” He might argue with others, but for the most part, he understands that cooperation generally should be the objective, as it’s in his best interests.

But why, then, are we seeing in so many of the countries of the First World, a rapidly increasing polarity amongst people. Ms. Starr is exactly correct. Those who would be most inclined toward mutual tolerance have, in recent years, become so polarised that they cannot so much as get together with their own families for the holidays without getting into heated arguments.

Why are people of today so solidly in one of two camps?

Can this be blamed on the rise of the internet? Well, no, the internet has become the source of a plethora of opinions and perceptions. And more than closing people off to polarised “A” and “B” choices, the internet has served to broaden public discourse.

Of course, most people express distrust for the media, particularly those networks that purportedly deal in “news.” What passes for news today is far from objective information that the viewer can then assess at his leisure.

On one network, we view unceasing diatribes against one political party. Then we turn the channel and view unceasing diatribes against the opposing party.

In turning on the News, we arrive at Indoctrination Central.

But if we really pay attention objectively, we discover that the same programmes are dictating to us that it is either our humanitarian duty to vax, or that vaxxing will enslave us to globalists who will inject us with microchips.

They are also our source for the opposing beliefs that warfare is essential to protect us against those who seek to destroy us, or that it will be the wars themselves that will destroy us.

In fact, all of Ms. Starr’s concerns find their source in the media. When we ask the question, “Who is shaking the jar… and why?” we find that those who control the media are at the source of the polarisation of people, especially in the First World.

As to the “Why?” the answer is so simple that it’s often overlooked. Like the ants, the more a people can be made to fight each other, the easier it is to subjugate them.

And since the effort to polarise people has become so massive, we can only conclude that the ultimate objective will be to implement a far greater level of subjugation, in an abnormally short period of time.

Liberal vs. Conservative. Black vs. white. Man vs. woman. Divide and conquer.

In such a socio-political climate, the challenge will be to keep your wits about you. As the jar is shaken on a daily basis, it will be vital to recognise that those who control the media are creating a war between the pigs and the wildebeests. This is something that is not desired by either species, but as Hermann Goering stated, “Why, of course the people don’t want war.” They must be goaded into it if those who are pulling the stings are to achieve greater subjugation.

In the coming years, this trend can be expected to become far worse than at present. The challenge will be to escape the jar if you can. Find a location where the state of warfare is less pronounced, or if this is not possible, seek a location within the jar that’s away from the fray.

Those who fall for the bait – who buy into rabidly supporting one political party or another, or who allow themselves to be angered at an entire race, or who are conned into hatred of an entire gender – will prove to be the greatest casualties of subjugation.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Learning From Ants appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post The 9/11 Files: The CIA’s Secret Mission Gone Wrong – Part ! and Part II appeared first on LewRockwell.