Lew Rockwell Institute

For years Donald Trump had no more committed a MAGA supporter than Rep. Margaret Taylor Greene of Georgia.

As a private citizen, she had been fervently loyal to Trump during all the troubles and setbacks of his first term.

Greene was then elected to Congress in 2020 and upon taking office fully endorsed Trump’s claims of a stolen election and his efforts to have it overturned. Just days later, the January 6, 2021 storming of the Capitol by a mob of outraged Trump supporters prompted many to denounce him as an insurrectionist, with numerous prominent Republicans joining that chorus of condemnation.

After that incident, Trump was immediately purged from Twitter, losing direct access to his tens of millions of erstwhile followers and crippling his influence. But Greene never wavered, and her loyalty to Trump soon led to a House vote removing her from all her committee roles, effectively eliminating most of her Congressional responsibilities.

During 2023 many dozens of felony charges were filed against Trump, with the four separate criminal prosecutions taking place in fiercely anti-Trump localities, whose juries were expected to convict him. As a result, most political analysts wrote off the former president as a political has-been, much more likely to end up financially bankrupt and in a prison cell than with any chance of regaining the White House in 2024. Indeed, many of the committed right-wing activists who had constituted Trump’s base shifted their support in the 2024 race to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, believing that he had a much better chance of winning the presidency and enacting elements of Trump’s agenda because he lacked the latter’s heavy political baggage.

But Greene stayed loyal, and her 28,000 word Wikipedia page never even mentions DeSantis, nor Nicki Haley, the former Trump official also widely promoted as a leading candidate in the 2024 primaries.

However, all of this began to change earlier this year, as Greene became more and more openly critical of many of Trump’s current policies. The flashpoint was the complete reversal on his longstanding pledge to release all the Jeffrey Epstein documents. So about a month ago Tucker Carlson interviewed Greene for thirty minutes regarding her growing break with Trump, preceding their discussion with his own hour-long monologue on the MAGA movement and its ideological principles.

Video Link

I’d always vaguely regarded MAGA—“Make America Great Again”—as merely a populist, right-wing slogan devoid of any substantive meaning, and indeed the 10,000 word Wikipedia article seems to suggest exactly that. But Carlson instead insisted that Trump’s ideological movement had clear principles, being based upon what he described as the Five Pillars of MAGA, which I’d summarize as follows:

• Putting the Interests of America First in Foreign Policy and Everything Else
• America Must Control Its Borders and Build a Wall
• No More Unnecessary Foreign Wars
• Stop Globalization and Bring Manufacturing Jobs Back to America
• Stop Censorship and Protect Free Speech

However, whether or not those fundamental pillars of the Trump MAGA movement may have existed, the actual policies implemented suggest that Trump himself was completely unaware of these.

For example, just a few weeks after Trump’s second inaugural I highlighted one of the most shocking actions taken by the new administration:

A 30-year-old Tufts doctoral student and Fulbright Scholar from Turkey was walking across her Boston-area neighborhood on the way to a holiday dinner at a friend’s house when she was suddenly seized and abducted in the early evening by six masked federal agents of the Department of Homeland Security. The terrified young woman was handcuffed and taken to a waiting car, secretly detained for the next 24 hours without access to friends, family, or lawyers, then shipped off to a holding cell in Louisiana and scheduled for immediate deportation, although a federal judge has now temporarily stayed the proceedings.

Just one of the Tweets showing a short clip of that incident has been viewed more than 4.5 million times, with a much longer YouTube video accumulating another couple of hundred thousand views.

That very disturbing scene seemed like something out of a Hollywood film chronicling the actions of a dystopian American police state, and that initial impression was only solidified once media reports explained why Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched off the streets of her home town. Her only reported transgression had been her co-authorship of an op-ed piece in the Tufts student newspaper a year earlier sharply criticizing Israel and its ongoing attacks on the civilian population of Gaza.

Apparently, one of the many powerful pro-Israel censorship organizations funded by Zionist billionaires became outraged over her sentiments and decided to make a public example of her, so its minions in the subservient Trump Administration immediately ordered her arrest.

• The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 31, 2025 • 7,300 Words

Snatching legal permanent American residents off our city streets because they had once been critical of the policies of a foreign government seemed to violate more than half of the alleged MAGA principles, and this pattern certainly continued during the months that followed.

Despite the intense lobbying of both Carlson and influential TPUSA leader Charlie Kirk, Trump later attacked Iran at the obvious behest of the Israel Lobby, which seemed to exercise even greater influence over his administration than it ever had over previous ones. Kirk’s strong disillusionment with the Israeli control over our government was soon followed by his extremely suspicious assassination, then by more recent claims that the FBI investigation may have been severely circumscribed while efforts by other administration figures to get at the truth of what happened were completely blocked.

So while someone like Rep. Greene had been completely committed to the MAGA agenda, the president she followed was not, and as a staunch believer in the ideals of “America First,” she began expressing her outrage that our own government had apparently fallen under the control of partisans serving a foreign nation. Tens of millions of Americans had voted for MAGA but they instead got MIGA—“Make Israel Great Again.”

This has hardly been the only example of MAGA failures or betrayals at the hands of our erratic president.

The bizarre, almost random nature of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the rapid reversal that followed seemed very unlikely to shift substantial numbers of manufacturing jobs back to America. Major business investment decisions require confidence in long-term stability, and with Trump dramatically changing his tariff policies apparently by personal whim on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis, none of that exists.

Over the last few weeks, Trump has regularly denounced Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as a notorious drug-dealer while providing no evidence to substantiate such accusations. These seemed aimed at justifying a looming American military attack against that country, with former Trump ally Col. Douglas Macgregor recently arguing that such a war will cost him his presidency. Then just a couple of days ago, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been convicted for drug-dealing by an American jury in 2024 and sentenced to 45 years in federal prison for flooding our country with 500 tons of cocaine over twenty years.

Soon after Greene’s appearance on Carlson’s show, Trump angrily denounced her and promised to support a Republican challenger in her district. More importantly, she began receiving numerous death-threats directed against herself and her family. Perhaps mindful of Kirk’s fate, she announced that she would resign from Congress in January.

Although all American presidents since Lyndon Johnson have been firmly pro-Israel, the Trump Administration has taken that policy to an absurd, almost cartoonish extent.

Earlier this year, Mike Huckabee, the American ambassador to Israel, had a long and friendly meeting with Jonathan Pollard, perhaps the most notorious traitor in recent American history, and neither Trump nor any of this officials seemed to take serious offense at that decision.

Meanwhile, one of the most forceful domestic policies pursued by Trump’s appointees has been their major campaign to combat antisemitism across our universities and the rest of our society, with the term usually so broadly defined as to encompass almost any criticism of Israel or Jews.

About a month ago, a political scientist named Laura K. Field published Furious Minds, a 400 page volume released by Princeton University Press analyzing the MAGA movement of President Donald Trump. Her work drew a long list of very favorable reviews and blurbs, from the New York Times on down and was even named a Financial Times Book of the Year.

But although her work was intended to be a guide to the beliefs permeating Trump’s political movement of the last few years and his current administration, she also naturally discussed the circumstances of Trump’s first presidential race. During that campaign, his candidacy was heavily associated with the Alt-Right movement, whose large and energetic presence on social media and the rest of the Internet may have helped him overcome all of Hillary Clinton’s huge traditional advantages in mainstream media support, political endorsements, and a far larger advertising budget.

Yet oddly enough, that Alt-Right movement was widely perceived as extremely critical of Jewish influence and Israel, with many of its leading figures expressing strongly antisemitic or even neo-Nazi beliefs.

The Alt-Right collapsed years ago and has no real connection with Trump’s current policies or personnel. But at the time, it had provoked an enormous amount of public attention, probably far more than any focus on MAGA. So before analyzing those latter ideas, I decided to first reexamine the very different group of activists and ideologues who had been so strongly identified with Trump’s 2016 race, a movement that I’d casually followed at the time but never investigated in any detail.

In her discussion, Field had repeatedly cited the work of George Hawley, a professor at the University of Alabama who had apparently become something of an academic expert on the Alt-Right, so I ordered and read his books, beginning with Right-Wing Critics of American Conservativism. Published by the University Press of Kansas, that 2016 volume seemed to have established his reputation as an authority on far right political movements, laying the basis for his subsequent books on the Alt-Right.

Hawley covered the origins of modern American conservativism and the many challenges it had faced over the years from the right, with his account generally following a rather conventional narrative.

After briefly discussing the Old Right of the pre-World War II era, he explained how William F. Buckley Jr. had essentially created modern American conservativism by founding National Review in 1955. Next, he recounted Buckley’s generally successful efforts to purge his mainstream conservative movement of various factions that he considered extremist or otherwise disreputable, including the highly conspiratorial John Birch Society and Ayn Rand’s libertarian Objectivists.

Following this introductory treatment, Hawley then devoted individual chapters to some of the other right-wing ideological challengers that mainstream conservatives had faced over the decades, including the “Localism” movement, libertarians, radical libertarians, and the Paleoconservatives of the 1990s. With the exception of his coverage of the “Localists”—who seemed rather unimportant to me—none of this material was new or ground-breaking, merely reflecting a traditional narrative presented in numerous other books that I had read over the years.

I noticed that no chapter was devoted to the Neocons, although the policies advocated by those former liberals and leftists were at least as divergent from the mainstream conservative movement as those groups that he had included. One of the most popular right-wing books of the 1960s was None Dare Call It Treason, with the title drawn from the famous epigram of an Elizabethan courtier pointing out that if traitors or rebels succeed in their enterprise, they inevitably rewrite history to conceal what had happened. And since the Neocons successfully seized control of the mainstream conservative movement during the 1980s and 1990s, purging any who opposed them, they were extensively discussed in Hawley’s text but unlike the other rebellious factions, no chapter was allocated to their successful coup.

Although most of his coverage seemed fine, some of Hawley’s rather blatant errors did jump out at me. For example, he repeatedly misidentified the very influential Gentile libertarian economist and Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek as a secular Jew. And although the author correctly explained that Buckley had based his conservatism upon Frank Meyer’s fusion of the three separate strands of free market economics, a hawkish anti-Communist foreign policy, and traditional social values, Hawley always misspelled it as “Fushionism,” a non-existent term rather than the “Fusionism” that it has always been called. These sorts of items suggested that the author lacked any deep knowledge of the ideological movement whose history he was describing.

A much more serious problem with Hawley’s account was one that he shared with nearly all previous histories of the conservative movement, which he had obviously used as his sources. These latter were almost invariably based in that ideological milieu, so much so that his discussion of the right-wing challenges that conservatism had faced was a little like using Stalinist tracts as the starting point for an analysis of Trotskyism.

This was not a major problem when author focused on libertarians or Paleoconservatives since he would then consider their own writings. But I think he seriously missed the boat with regard to earlier periods from the 1950s or the 1960s, failing to realize that later conservative chroniclers might have deliberately ignored or downplayed some important right-wingers whom they or their own earlier sources had regarded as too dangerous to discuss. After all, if conservatives had successfully thrown their early opponents down the memory-hole, the last thing they wanted was to resurrect such past ideological foes and bring them to the attention of later writers.

Consider, for example, Prof. Revilo P. Oliver, a distinguished classics scholar, who only received a single brief mention, one that casually dismissed him as a minor early conservative figure jettisoned for his antisemitism. Such a characterization was exactly how he has almost invariably been portrayed in mainstream conservative histories if they even bothered to mention him at all. But this is far from accurate, and by blindly relying upon such accounts, the author was merely repeating such severe distortions. During World War II, Oliver had headed an important American code-breaking division and then later served as one of the leading early figures in both National Review and the John Birch Society during the 1950s and 1960s, afterwards spending decades as a highly influential figure in far right circles prior to his 1994 death.

The fiercely atheistic and antisemitic Oliver had long been personally close to Buckley, having been a member of the latter’s 1950 wedding party—according to Paul Gottfried even serving as his best man—and his 1981 memoirs America’s Decline included some shocking facts about the early conservative movement. According to Oliver, National Review had originally been founded with the explicit, secret goal of combatting Jewish influence in American society. In support of that dramatic claim, we know that the largest portion of the initial funding came from Buckley’s own very wealthy father, who was notorious for his ferocious antisemitic sentiments. Oliver also claimed that the John Birch Society had been founded a few years later with exactly that same secret, antisemitic agenda. But Oliver explained that funding difficulties soon forced both those conservative organizations to desperately seek the support of major Jewish donors and therefore completely abandon those original goals, which they naturally did their best to conceal.

I summarized this remarkable first-hand account in a 2019 article, and whether or not Hawley would have credited Oliver’s stories, he certainly should have included the latter’s memoirs among his important source materials.

An even more serious omission came with regard to Prof. John Beaty’s 1951 volume The Iron Curtain Over America, which went through some 17 printings and reportedly became the second bestselling conservative book of the 1950s. Like Oliver, Beaty was a well-regarded academic scholar and during World War II he had held one of our most crucial positions in Military Intelligence, being responsible for producing the daily briefing reports provided to the White House and all our other top military and political leaders. Once again, both Beaty and his huge conservative bestseller have been totally removed from almost all our conservative histories, and Hawley seemed completely unaware of either the man or his book.

The reason for Beaty’s total purge from conservative memory is hardly mysterious. Although he himself was a strong anti-Communist and a devout Christian of rather moderate views, his central wartime role and his subsequent years of research led to his explosive account of the enormous but hidden role of Jewish organizations in our political life and our involvement in the war, and his dramatic claims were strongly endorsed by a long list of top generals and influential U.S. senators. The title of his book referred to the “iron curtain” of Jewish media control that had descended upon American society, and it seemed likely that Beaty’s analysis of that growing problem may have helped prompt the founding of National Review a few years later.

Read the Whole Article

The post Donald Trump and the Alt-Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

Just as the news breaks that Trump has issued Maduro an ultimatum to leave Venezuela immediately if he wants to escape with his life, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has published an amazingly brazen war propaganda piece titled “How Venezuelan Gangs and African Jihadists Are Flooding Europe With Cocaine.”

“Venezuela has become a major launchpad for huge volumes of cocaine shipped to West Africa, where jihadists are helping traffic it to Europe in record quantities,” the article begins, going out of its way to note that “the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro — who it asserts is heavily involved in drug smuggling — has brought global attention to the country’s role in the drug trade.”

The propaganda piece is plainly aimed at Europeans as well as Americans, emphasizing Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s quip last month that the Europeans “should be thanking us” for blowing up alleged drug boats coming from Venezuela because he says some of those drugs are winding up in Europe.

It’s got everything. Whipping up international support for a regime change war. Fearmongering about “jihadists”. The evil, scary dictator. The whole war propaganda sales package.

Venezuela has become a major launchpad for huge volumes of cocaine shipped to West Africa, where jihadists are helping traffic it to Europe in record quantities. https://t.co/Oz1U9wtWVI

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 1, 2025

The mass media do this every time the US empire gets war-horny. And the Murdoch press are always the most egregious offenders.

Reminds me of an old tweet by a man named Malcolm Price:

“I remember in the run-up to the Iraq War a friend I had known all my life suddenly said to me, ‘We must do something about this monster in Iraq.’ I said, ‘When did you first think that?’ He answered honestly, ‘A month ago’.”

Price’s friend had been swept up in the imperial war propaganda campaign that had recently begun, just like countless millions of others. Month after month after month western consciousness was hammered with false narratives about weapons of mass destruction, forced associations of Saddam Hussein with 9/11, and stories about how much better things will be for the people of Iraq once that evil tyrant is gone.

Normally it never would have occurred to the average westerner that a country on the other side of the planet should be invaded and its leader replaced with a puppet regime. That’s not the sort of thing that would have organically entered someone’s mind. It needed to be placed there.

So it was.

The most common misconception about the free press of the western world is that it exists. All the west’s most influential and far-reaching news media publications are here not to report factual stories about current events, but to manufacture consent for the pre-existing agendas of the US-centralized western empire.

They report many true things, to be sure, and if you acquire some media literacy you can actually learn how to glean a lot of useful information from the imperial press without losing your mind to the spin machine. But reporting true things is not their purpose. Their purpose is to manipulate public psychology at mass scale for the benefit of the empire they serve.

This doesn’t happen through some kind of centralized Ministry of Truth where sinister social engineers secretly conspire to deceive people. It happens because all mainstream press institutions are controlled either by plutocrats or by western governments in the form of state broadcasters like the BBC, both of which have a vested interest in maintaining the imperial status quo. They control who the executives and lead editors of these outlets are, and those leaders shape the hiring and editing processes of the publication or broadcaster. Reporters come to understand that there are certain lines they need to color within if they want to get articles published and continue advancing their careers, so they either learn to toe the imperial line or they disappear from the mass media industry.

If people had a clear understanding of everything that’s really going on in our world, they would tear the empire apart brick by brick. If they could truly see how much evil is being done in their name and really wrap their minds around it, and if they could understand how much wealth the plutocrats are getting out of the imperial status quo compared to how little they themselves benefit from it, there would be immediate revolution. So the oligarchs and empire managers shore up narrative control in the form of media ownership, think tanks, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation, imperial information ops like Wikipedia, and now increasingly through billionaire-owned AI chatbots to ensure that this never happens.

I remember in the run-up to the Iraq War a friend I had known all my life suddenly said to me, ‘We must do something about this monster in Iraq.’ I said, ‘When did you first think that?’ He answered honestly, ‘A month ago’. #Propaganda @medialens

— Malcolm Pryce (@exogamist) April 12, 2018

The entire empire is built on a foundation of lies. The whole power structure is held together by nonstop manipulation of the way westerners think, speak, act, shop, work, and vote. If truth ever finds a way to get a word in edgewise, the entire thing would collapse.

We know this is true because the oligarchs and empire managers pour so much wealth and energy into manipulating our minds. They’re not doing this for fun, they’re doing it because they need to. If they didn’t need to, it wouldn’t be happening.

So what they are doing is intensely creepy and destructive, but it’s also empowering, because it shows us right where their weak spot is. They’re pouring all this energy into controlling the dominant narrative because that’s the weakest point in the armor of the imperial machine.

What we need, then, is a grassroots effort to help truth get a word in. Help people understand that they’ve been propagandized and deceived about the world by western media and by their power-serving education systems every day of their lives, because propaganda only works if you don’t know it’s happening to you. Sow distrust in the imperial media and institutions. Open people’s eyes to the fact that they’re being lied to, and help them learn to see the truth. Anywhere the empire is sowing lies and distortions — whether that’s in Venezuela or Gaza or somewhere else — use that opportunity to help more people unplug their minds from the propaganda matrix.

A better world is possible. The first step in moving toward it is snapping people out of the propaganda-induced coma which dupes them into settling for this dystopian nightmare instead.

_____________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Ah, Good Old War Propaganda appeared first on LewRockwell.

Malcolm Muggeridge was a talented journalist who lived in Moscow in 1933, working for the Manchester Guardian. Though attracted to communism in his youth, the experience of being in Stalin’s Russia and observing what was going on caused him to become disillusioned. Especially disturbing was his realization that Stalin’s army and police were—as part of their collectivization program—starving millions of landowning peasants (known as kulaks) by confiscating their grain. A large and productive number of kulaks possessed farms in Ukraine, which has some of the richest soil in the world. This massive organized crime—known as the Holodomor—resulted in the deaths of millions in the winter of 1933.

Muggeridge was the ONLY western journalist to report what was going on. When his reports were published, many of his fellow writers—including George Bernard Shaw, Aldous Huxley, Jean-Paul Sartre, Upton Sinclair and Theodore Dreiser, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb—refused to believe them, and they passionately asserted that Muggeridge was spreading falsehoods about Stalin’s regime.

Muggeridge was related to the Webbs by marriage, and years later he told a funny story about Beatrice.

I remember Mrs. Webb, who after all was a very cultivated upper-class liberal-minded person, an early member of the Fabian Society and so on, saying to me, ‘Yes, it’s true, people disappear in Russia.’ She said it with such great satisfaction that I couldn’t help thinking that there were a lot of people in England whose disappearance she would have liked to organize.”

For decades, Muggeridge’s accurate reporting of the Holodomor was denied and suppressed. The dominant narrative of Stalin’s Russia in the early thirties was that propagated by the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, Walter Duranty, who vehemently denied the Holodomor. While Muggeridge’s true and courageous reporting was denied, Duranty won a Pulitzer Price for his concealment of one of the greatest crimes of the 20th Century. It’s a testament to the power of Duranty’s mendacious work that most Americans have still never heard of the Holodomor.

Over the last five years, I’ve often thought about Muggeridge and Duranty as I have watched courageous scholars like Dr. Peter McCullough persecuted and censored, while COVID-19 vaccine ideologues are rewarded. Most notable is the COVID-19 vaccine propagandist, Dr. Peter Hotez, who was recently nominated for the Nobel Prize.

One of the most bizarre features of our bizarre time is that an experimental, gene transfer technology has become an object of unshakable devotion. Among members of the COVID-19 Vaccine Cult, belief in the substance (about which they know nothing) is an article of faith.

In the 1930s, 40s, and even 50s, many of the most prominent journalists, writers, intellectuals, and artists believed in Stalin’s Cult of Personality. Muggeridge knew (from his own observations) that they weren’t seeing the reality of Stalin’s regime. Because they viewed the world through the highly distorting lens of ideology, they couldn’t see what was right in front of them.

I was again reminded of this extremely shabby and disheartening chapter of intellectual history this morning when I watched Dr. McCullough’s exposition of the childhood vaccines deaths that were just acknowledged in a leaked FDA memo.

As he points out, we have known about this for years, and have persistently warned about since August 2020, when Dr. McCullough published his first alarm (The great gamble of COVID-19 vaccine development).

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post When Ideology Collides With Evidence appeared first on LewRockwell.

As it is becoming obvious that Ukraine is losing in the proxy war against Russia, the ideas European governments are are throwing around are getting more crazy.

Some are now eager to ‘pre-emptively’ attack Russia in ‘retaliation’ for alleged ‘hybrid attacks’ against European countries. Those ‘hybrid attacks’ are mostly pure fantasies.

Politico was first to report this nonsense:

Europe thinks the unthinkable: Retaliating against Russia – Politico, Nov 27 2025
Countries are looking at joint offensive cyber operations and surprise military drills as Moscow steps up its campaign to destabilize NATO allies.

Russia’s drones and agents are unleashing attacks across NATO countries and Europe is now doing what would have seemed outlandish just a few years ago: planning how to hit back.

Ideas range from joint offensive cyber operations against Russia, and faster and more coordinated attribution of hybrid attacks by quickly pointing the finger at Moscow, to surprise NATO-led military exercises, according to two senior European government officials and three EU diplomats.

“The Russians are constantly testing the limits — what is the response, how far can we go?” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže noted in an interview. A more “proactive response is needed,” she told POLITICO. “And it’s not talking that sends a signal — it’s doing.”

What are the ‘hybrid attacks’ in question?

Russian drones have buzzed Poland and Romania in recent weeks and months, while mysterious drones have caused havoc at airports and military bases across the continent. Other incidents include GPS jamming, incursions by fighter aircraft and naval vessels, and an explosion on a key Polish rail link ferrying military aid to Ukraine.

The idea to ‘pre-empivly’ attack Russia comes from an Italian defense paper:

Last week, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto slammed the continent’s “inertia” in the face of growing hybrid attacks and unveiled a 125-page plan to retaliate. In it, he suggested establishing a European Center for Countering Hybrid Warfare, a 1,500-strong cyber force, as well as military personnel specialized in artificial intelligence.

To me that looks like someone is seeking additional NATO payments. Three days later a Italian NATO general furthered the idea:

Nato considers being ‘more aggressive’ against Russia’s hybrid warfare (archived) – Financial Times, Nov 30 025
Alliance’s top military officer says it could become proactive in dealing with Moscow threat

Nato is considering being “more aggressive” in responding to Russia’s cyber attacks, sabotage and airspace violations, according to the alliance’s most senior military officer.

Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told the Financial Times that the western military alliance was looking at stepping up its response to hybrid warfare from Moscow.
…
Some diplomats, especially from eastern European countries, have urged Nato to stop being merely reactive and hit back. Such a response would be easiest for cyber attacks where many countries have offensive capabilities but would be less easy for sabotage or drone intrusions.
…
Dragone said that a “pre-emptive strike” could be considered a “defensive action”, but added: “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behaviour.”

He added: “Being more aggressive compared with the aggressivity of our counterpart could be an option. [The issues are] legal framework, jurisdictional framework, who is going to do this?”

Admiral Dragone is using Orwellian speech when he seems obviously lobbying for 1,500 NATO paid jobs in his home country.

One problem with this is that there is little evidence of any ‘hybrid attacks’.

Ursula von der Leyen was caught outright lying when her staff claimed that alleged Russian GPS distortion had prolonged a flight she was taking.

The alleged intrusion of Russian planes into Estonian airspace had turned out to be an innocent passage near an uninhabited island far from the coast.

The Dutch magazine Trouw has found that the myriad of recent drone panics had little to do with Russia.

Analysis sixty drone incidents in Europe: a lot of panic and little evidence (archived) – Trouw.nl

Machine translation:

Using the Dronewatch platform, Trouw mapped around sixty incidents involving drones in eleven European countries. These took place in the last three months. The conclusion: a lot of confusion and ambiguity and regular false alarms. For Russian involvement, as some authorities and experts point out, in the vast majority of cases no hard evidence has been provided.

In about forty incidents, the origin is still unclear or no evidence has been found for drones in the airspace. An example is Oslo, where drone reports shut down air traffic at the end of September, affecting thousands of travelers. The police did not find any confirmation afterwards that drones were actually flying. The same was true for reports at the airport of Swedish Gothenburg in early November.

In at least fourteen cases, it turned out to be something completely different afterwards. For example, people in Belgium mistook (small) planes and helicopters for drones, while the flying objects in South Limburg and Danish Billund were stars. The Norwegian police concluded that a suspicious ‘drone’ near an oil platform in the North Sea was probably a ship.

A number of times it has been established that drone flights were the work of a hobbyist or that it later turned out to be a tourist. In an incident in Warsaw where a drone flew over government buildings, Polish police picked up a Ukrainian and a 17-year-old girl from Belarus. There is no evidence of espionage.

This picture was published by media as showing alleged damage by an alleged explosion along a Polish rail line

bigger

According to the Polish outlet Super Express, a train driver travelling near the Mikołajówka (Mika) station informed dispatchers at 07:39 about irregularities in the rail infrastructure.

A preliminary inspection revealed that roughly one meter of track had been destroyed, forcing the train to stop. No passengers or crew members were injured.
…
Prime Minister Donald Tusk later underscored the gravity of the incident on X, stating:

“Blowing up the rail track on the Warsaw–Lublin route is an unprecedented act of sabotage targeting directly the security of the Polish state and its civilians. This route is also crucially important for delivering aid to Ukraine. We will catch the perpetrators, whoever they are.”

Nothing was ‘blown up’. What can be seen in the picture is not the result of an explosion. For comparison you might want to watch this attempt (vid) of using C-4 explosive to cut an I-beam. It is a VERY violent process. But the track ballast under the broken rail as well as the sleepers seem undisturbed and undamaged. The incident was most likely a brittle crack caused by fatigue. The rail was probably not firmly fixed on the sleepers and bent when trains were running over it. When that happens one time too many rails will break.

The alleged ‘hybrid attacks’ by Russia are over-hyped normal incidents with little if any relation to Russia. To use these as an excuse for ‘pre-emptive strikes’, be it cyber or whatnot, hardly makes such ‘defensive’.

And what, by the way, is Admiral Dragone planing to do if Russia hits back?

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post NATO Thinks of ‘Pre-emptive Strikes’ Against Russia To ‘Defend’ Against Something That Did Not Happen appeared first on LewRockwell.

If each of these is not a part of any ‘reform,’ than all that is being done is pouring money into a monopolizing cartel, just in a slightly different way.

Unbeknownst to those of us with little inside knowledge of the complex financial plumbing of the US healthcare system, healthcare is in a death spiral that will surprise everyone but insiders who grasp the system’s unsustainability.

To help us outsiders understand the death spiral, I asked a senior MD to guide us through “follow the money.”

Trump Blasts “Big, Fat, Rich Insurance Companies” As Lawmakers Propose Ways To ‘Fix’ Obamacare.

Since this is the issue of the day and it falls within my expertise, here are some thoughts.

A $2,000 direct payment to beneficiaries such as being currently contemplated is completely ineffectual, especially since it has to be borrowed and will just increase inflation that much further.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Healthcare Is in a Death Spiral: Follow the Money appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Jerome Barber.

The post Ayn Rand Warned Us appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

The post Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: Why All Vaccines are Bad appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post ‘Who Ordered The Second Strike?’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Sasha Stone

The post Erika Kirk and The Wicked Witches of the Left appeared first on LewRockwell.

John Smith wrote:

Stop Anti-Semitism Lists Ms. Rachel, Tucker Carlson as Finalists for ‘Antisemite of the Year’ |

The Libertarian Institute

The post Stop Anti-Semitism Lists Ms. Rachel, Tucker Carlson as Finalists for ‘Antisemite of the Year’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bill Madden wrote:

Jean:

Thanks again for your full page ad in the: www.americanfreepress.net (AFP). 

The gentlemen on the Cc line forward my thoughts on occasion and might also do the same if you copied them with your thoughts.  I have my pedestrian views published at: www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/ every now and then.  Your political perspective deserves wider distribution and I’d like to help.  If you could send me your AFP ads as an attachment, I’d be happy to attach them to my e-mails on occasion.  I’m not computer literate so an attachment would help me re-send your ads.

Most Americans are ignorant and apathetic.  While starvation is one of the best cures for apathy, education will help the ignorant humans not consumed with apathy.  

I’ve been saying since the 1970s that the pro-Constitution conservatives needed good, effective leadership and an ability to educate the masses.  Many people feel like you do and might become more vocal if they could be inspired by your words.

Again, thanks for your efforts on behalf of the country.

The post Distribution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lew,

Nine days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, his close friend Tucker Carlson appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show with TPUSA’s Andrew Korvet and Blake Neff. It’s interesting to watch it now to gain insight into Tucker’s friendship with Charlie and their shared faith as followers of Christ. Korvet immediately gave the FBI text messages from Charlie that gave clues to possible involvement of a foreign power in his murder, but Korvet never publicly spoke of it afterward. Neff came under criticism for his recitation of TPUSA COO Mikey McCoy’s behavior immediately after Kirk was hit. Frank Turek makes an appearance – he was the guy to Charlie’s right at the UVU event in the white shirt  – who came under scrutiny for touching his white ball cap as a signal. Frank said the idea signals mean anything is ridiculous and denounced the conspiracy theory. The last few minutes of the video Tucker and Korvet discuss how Kirk double downed when his donors attempted to bully him into canceling Tucker’s appearance at a TPUSA conference due to Carlson’s foreign policy views.

The post Tucker Carlson on The Charlie Kirk Show appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: Why All Vaccines are Bad appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Bill Madden:

The difference between a conspiracy theory and objective reality is about six months.

The post Meme – One Day appeared first on LewRockwell.

My Two “Red Pill” Events

The Necessity of Power Elite Analysis in Understanding our World

Robert Barnes on the Deep Background of the Deep State Up to the JFK Assassination and Beyond

The Deep State or Invisible Government: A Brief Bibliographic Retrospective

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis. — Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373

Although the term the deep state (also described as the invisible government, or the secret government) has only gained widespread usage in recent years, the concept of double or dual governments is almost as old as the republic itself.

One of my all-time favorite books is the extremely rare 1934 volume by John McConaughy, Who Rules America?: A Century of Invisible Government, (published the same year as Albert Jay Nock’s seminal Our Enemy, The State).

.pdf version

Author McConaughy states:

Invisible Government’ is a phrase for which it would be difficult to formulate a dictionary definition without sacrifice of accuracy to brevity. It may perhaps be best described as the political and economic control of the community — or the political control for selfish, if not sinister, economic purposes — by individual men, or groups or organizations, who are careful to evade the responsibility which should always accompany power. They operate behind a mask or puppets in politics and business, and these must take the blame in courts of law, and before the bar of public opinion, for any errors in the technique of knavery.

McConaughy then impiously rips the masks off our elitist ‘Funding Fathers’ and their ‘invisible government’ for special privilege.

In what is one of the finest and most powerful histories of the early years of the American state, he demonstrates that the adoption of the Constitution amounted to a coup d’etat by these forces of ‘invisible government’.

Although the names and faces have changed over time, this is the same predatory plutocracy behind the Federal Reserve’s monetary meltdown and the Wall Street bankster bailouts, as well as Dwight Eisenhower’s military industrial complex and its related clandestine national security intelligence community apparat.

In 1964, shortly after the JFK assassination, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross wrote the first definitive examination of the Central Intelligence Agency, The Invisible Government, which was a major best-seller

In the opening of their expose’ they observed:

THERE ARE two governments in the United States today. One is visible. The other is invisible.

The first is the government that citizens read about in their newspapers and children study about in their civics books. The second is the interlocking, hidden machinery that carries out the policies of the United States in the Cold War.

This second, invisible government gathers intelligence, conducts espionage, and plans and executes secret operations all over the globe.

The Invisible Government is not a formal body. It is a loose, amorphous grouping of individuals and agencies drawn from many parts of the visible government. It is not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency, although the CIA is at its heart. Nor is it confined to the nine other agencies which comprise what is known as the intelligence community: the National Security Council, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Invisible Government includes, also, many other units and agencies, as well as individuals, that appear outwardly to be a normal part of the conventional government. It even encompasses business firms and institutions that are seemingly private.

To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000 Americans. Major decisions involving peace or war are taking place out of public view. An informed citizen might come to suspect that the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government in just the opposite direction.

This Invisible Government is a relatively new institution. It came into being as a result of two related factors: the rise of the United States after World War II to a position of pre-eminent world power, and the challenge to that power by Soviet Communism.

Government of the Shadows: Parapolitics and Criminal Sovereignty, edited by Eric Wilson, analyses the concept of clandestine government. It explores how covert political activity and transnational organized crime are linked — and how they ultimately work to the advantage of state and corporate power. The book shows that legitimate government is now routinely accompanied by extra-governmental covert operations. Using a variety of case studies, from the mafia in Italy to programs for food and reconstruction in Iraq, the contributors illustrate that para-political structures are not ‘deviant’, but central to the operation of global governments.

In particular see the chapter, “Democratic State vs. Deep State: Approaching the Dual State of the West ,” by Ola Tunander, which observes:

In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’.1

According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’ – which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’)2 – that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state – the ‘security state’ – is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law.3

Indeed, the ‘democratic state’ and the more autocratic ‘security state’ always ‘march side by side’!4

While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of democratic politics. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists’, when particular activities are ‘securitised’5 – in the event of an ‘emergency’. In fact, the security state is the very apparatus that defines when and whether a ‘state of emergency’ will emerge. This aspect of the state is what Carl Schmitt, in his 1922 work Political Theology, referred to as the ‘sovereign’.6

Logically speaking, one might argue that Morgenthau’s ‘dual state’ is derived from the same duality as that described in Ernst Fraenkel’s ‘conception of the ‘dual state’, which Fraenkel described as typifying the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany. In the Nazi case, though, this duality was overt, combining the ‘regular’ legal state with a parallel ‘prerogative state’, an autocratic paramilitary emergency state or Machtstaat that operated outside or ‘above’ the legal system, with its philosophical foundation in the Schmittian ‘sovereign’. Fraenkel refers to Emil Lederer, who argues that this Machtstaat (‘power state’, as distinct from the Rechtstaat) has its historical origins in the European aristocratic elite, which still played an important role within European society after the triumph of democracy. This elite acted behind the scene in the 1920s, but considered it necessary to intervene in support of the Nazi Party in the 1930s to prevent a possible socialist takeover. However, this autocratic Machtstaat – the Nazi SS-state – was arbitrary, because of its individualised command.7

In his analysis, Morgenthau draws a parallel between Nazi Germany and the US dual state. Indeed, in his view, the autocratic ‘security state’ may be less visible and less arbitrary in democratic societies such as the US, but it is no less important.

Morgenthau argues that

the power of making decisions remains with the authorities charged by law with making them, while, as a matter of fact, by virtue of their power over life and death, the agents of the secret police… [and what I would call the security state:
author] at the very least exert an effective veto over [these] decisions.8

The post Opening My Eyes to a Deeper, Wider Perspective on Viewing the World – its History and Geopolitics appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s the craziest thing in the world that we already have the technological ability to provide a decent standard of living for everyone on earth, but it doesn’t happen because it’s not profitable. We attained the greatest scientific achievement of all time and then did nothing with it. Our society is completely uninterested in it because capitalism is completely uninterested in it.

It’s just so insane how this doesn’t sit front and center in our attention all the time. There are people dying of starvation, exposure and preventable illnesses every single day for no good reason. Humanity became more than capable of ensuring that this never happened to anyone ever again, and just rode right past that stunning moment in history without even glancing up from its smartphone.

Can you imagine if we did that with any other major technological development?

“Oh yeah humans can fly now… but let’s not.”

“Hey humans now have the ability to share ideas and information in real time with anyone in the world, but whatever, let’s keep mailing letters instead.”

And I would argue that the ability to eliminate poverty and needless human suffering is a far more significant development than flight or the internet. But because it doesn’t generate value for shareholders, we cruised right past it going “Let’s make a chatbot that can generate an Alvin and the Chipmunks version of any song!”

This happened because caring for everyone was never the goal of capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to extract labor from the working class and resources from the global south to sell goods and services at a rate that generates profit for the owners of the means of production. That’s it.

Capitalism has no wisdom. It will start wars to generate profit. It will have impoverished populations toiling in mines and sweatshops for pennies in order to generate profit. It will burn up critical drinking water supplies for AI data centers in order to generate profit. It will cut down the last acre of old-growth rainforest in order to generate profit. It will pollute the air, fill the oceans with plastic and kill all the insects if offloading the cost of industry onto the ecosystem helps generate profit.

The entire world is being consumed by an artificially imposed system which holds as its foundational premise that mass-scale human behavior should be driven by the pursuit of profit for its own sake. It’s a mindless, planet-devouring machine of our own making. It is creating unfathomable destruction and suffering for terrestrial organisms of every species.

And it doesn’t have to be this way. There is nothing inscribed upon the fabric of the universe which says that we need to live under a system which causes us to feed our biosphere into the woodchipper so that billionaires can become trillionaires. Nowhere is it written in adamantine that that the many must always toil and suffer for the benefit of the few. Things are the way they are because of systems that were put in place by human beings, and human beings can replace those systems with different ones.

If we are to continue to survive on this planet, we’re going to have to move from systems which drive us to compete against our fellow humans and our fellow terrestrial organisms to systems that are driven by collaboration toward the good of all beings. Such systems would be entirely unprecedented by their nature, because unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. It would be unlike anything that’s ever been done before, but it is now a matter of existential importance that it be done.

We’re going to have to change. We’re going to have to become kinder. Gentler. Emotionally intelligent. Driven by the desire for the greater good instead of by fear and insecurity. We’re going to have to wake up. We’re going to have to become unlike anything we’ve ever been before.

Every species eventually hits an adapt-or-die juncture in its existence. This is ours. We must become a compassionate animal, or we will go the way of the dinosaur.

_________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post The Craziest Thing in the World Is That We Could End Poverty, But We Don’t appeared first on LewRockwell.

I recently watched the latest television network special on the JFK assassination: “Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK?” from ABC News. While the names and faces were different, it was indistinguishable from all the other disinfo pieces produced by CBS, NBC, the Discovery Channel, etc. in the past. I watched it so you don’t have to.

In 1963, there were only three television networks. On November 22, CBS, NBC, and ABC launched unprecedented coverage of President Kennedy being shot while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Not the actual shooting, of course. That was never shown. They set the template for all television news to come. They simply passed on official pronouncements from local law enforcement, the FBI, and the White House, which were consistently inconsistent and defied all common sense. NBC signed an agreement, in the wake of the biggest story of the twentieth century, to air only information that supported the government’s official narrative. Six decades ago, a bunch of “journalists” who are almost all long dead, agreed not to do what they were supposedly paid to do; investigate and question. Dan Rather was then a young reporter for the Dallas CBS affiliate. He was front and center, and breathlessly went on the air to relate how he’d seen a copy of the Zapruder film.

That home movie was taken by Dallas dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder. Giant “free press” outlet Life magazine paid Zapruder a huge sum of money for the film. Surely, you might think, this representative of the public’s right to know did so in order to beat the competition to the punch, and air the film is as many creative and profitable ways as possible. Actually, they buried it for twelve years. Suppressed it completely, like the Epstein Files. John D. Rockefeller would have been proud. If that seems like an odd thing to do, how odd was it that we had to rely on this grainy home video, to see exactly what happened in that presidential motorcade? There were a few other home movies of the event, including the never seen “Babushka film” (so called because the camerawoman wears a Russian scarf), which had the best view. Where was all the professional footage? The press was normally in front of every presidential motorcade, with their cameras trained on the smiling, handsome president. Not this time. Instead, they were packed into a bus several cars back in the motorcade.

Now, ABC News knew this in 1963. NBC knew it. CBS knew it. They also presumably knew that their ambitious local reporter Dan Rather was lying when he said that the Zapruder film showed JFK’s head going forward with great velocity. The film shows the exact opposite- the president’s head going back and to the left with tremendous force. Since the government claimed lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald was firing from above and behind, this obviously defied the laws of physics. They knew that there were multiple witnesses the government wasn’t interested in. At least six people who independently saw someone resembling Oswald running and entering a station wagon immediately after shots were fired. The Umbrella Man, pumping an open umbrella up and down on a sunny day. He was never identified, just like the Babushka Lady. The hole in the limo’s windshield. The absolute failure of the Secret Service to react to gunfire. Limo driver Bill Greer turning around instead of speeding away to safety.

The mainstream media knew all this and more. They knew that more people thought shots were fired from the front- the infamous Grassy Knoll- than from the building where Oswald worked. Look at the film- everyone is rushing for the Grassy Knoll. No witnesses are looking at, or interested in the Texas School Book Depository Building, where Oswald was a lowly paid worker. Only two mainstream journalists at the beginning were willing to actually do some digging. Jim Koethe was a Dallas Times Herald reporter, rumored to be working on a book about the case. Less then a year after the assassination, he was killed by a karate chop to the throat as he exited the shower. Really. “Natural causes,” I suppose. And Dorothy Kilgallen, famous panelist for the TV show What’s my Line? but also a real journalist, was deep into researching what would have been a blockbuster book on the case. Instead, she died under very suspicious circumstances in November, 1965. Her voluminous files were never found, and her best friend, who had once dated the young JFK, died a few days later.

Walter Cronkite, the trusty soul who provided the voice of the Giant Owl at the Bohemian Grove occult rituals for decades, and late in life bragged about being proud to be “seated at the right hand of Satan,” narrated a putrid 1967 CBS apologia for the Warren Report. Dan Rather followed suit in another comical “investigation” aired in the mid-1970s. NBC busied itself with discrediting Jim Garrison, and ABC aired a horrific 40th anniversary special in 2003, hosted by the Canadian high school dropout Peter Jennings. How do you go from high school dropout to national anchor? That’s even more impressive than college dropout turned billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. At any rate, the power of the medium was so strong that one of my sisters watched it and then told me that I was “wrong” about there being a conspiracy. How do you compete with that? The same fellow who dominated that 2003 special with his computer “animation,” Dale Myers, also dominates this new ABC special.

I argued with Dale Myers briefly decades ago on one of the biggest JFK assassination forums. With all due modesty, he really did run away with his cyber tail between his legs. But here I was, watching him spew out his nonsense again, with no one there to contradict him. ABC had nothing but shills for the official fairy tale as talking heads on this “investigative report.” Oliver Stone was there, sitting next to his good buddy Jim DiEugenio, whom I know and have interviewed. Stone was given a few sound bytes here or there, and DiEugenio had one short comment. They didn’t even flash his name onscreen. Jefferson Morley, who has been on a couple of shows with me, was there to provide his very truncated view of conspiracy, but even that was too much for ABC. Unless I missed something, he was only allowed one brief comment as well. There were the usual haggard “reporters,” who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, and are ordered to spout the nonsensical party line. You want that six figure- hell, maybe seven figure Christmas bonus, don’t you?

There was a young Black man, who was so unimpressive that I’ve forgotten his name. He was listed as a “social media influencer.” Probably has millions of fake followers. At any rate, he was a blatant DEI plant, who was born decades after the event and had absolutely nothing pertinent to offer. To be fair, he was no worse than the worn out ABC News veterans who displayed their mind boggling ignorance for maybe 250,000 viewers. That’s the hilarious thing about network television; they don’t seem to understand how few people watch them now. Cronkite’s audience is as dead as he is, although hopefully nowhere near the right hand of Satan. And yet, I’m sure that ABC pays these “journalists” huge salaries. It’s a crony capitalist business model thing, you wouldn’t understand. Any number of alt media figures draw a larger audience than these dinosaur networks do. So they know they’re not reaching millions. And yet they continue to lie. They must lie. Deception seems to give them sustenance.

If they simply had given Stone, DiEugenio, and Morley an equal amount of screen time, as opposed to giving so much of it to the absurd arguments of Myers, then however many people actually watched it might have become at least a bit educated on the subject. But, as always, our state controlled media has to make certain that the playing field isn’t level. The referees are on their side. They make the rules. They rig the game. I’ve been down this JFK assassination rabbit hole for fifty years now. Not many are left who have seniority on me. But the research conferences aren’t interested in me, so you know the television networks aren’t going to call. I know the facts. I’ve studied this thing well enough to understand how big a lie the official story is. I’m not going to entertain notions of a limited plot, from “rogue” elements, or a benign coverup. This was a massive conspiracy, involving very powerful forces. Journalists not yet born in 1963 continue to peddle these lies. That’s how powerful they are.

Read the Whole Article

The post JFK: 62 Years and They’re Still Lying appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I hear people talk about saving Western values, I ask them which ones still exist. 

I asked a feminist that question and all she could come up with was “male toxicity.”  I had just listened to a NPR program on which two feminists talked about Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders being sexually harassed.  So why did the cheerleaders fight so hard to get that job?  If they thought that their scantily-clad bodies weren’t going to attract male attention, they must have been crazy.  And disappointed had no male noticed.

Recently over a beer I listened to a former police officer explain how police departments in Democrat cities were being put in the hands of women and blacks. He said that it was the black police chief and white female in charge of police training in Minneapolis who framed Derek Chauvin.  They wanted to get a white male cop and withheld evidence and possibly perjured themselves in order to achieve their goal.

I read recently and reported that “victimized” women now dominate most professions, law, media, education, health care,  and are closing in on corporate executives.  Today’s reality is toxic femininity.  Consider what it means for a “toxic” white male to have a feminist for a boss.  Or a black boss who was taught in school to hate white “slave lords” and aversive racists.  In the Western world everyone except a white heterosexual male can be a victim.  White males can only be oppressors.  This is why when you hear a male on NPR or the networks, he speaks very effete in order to suggest that he is queer and not a toxic male.

The feminists were set back by the assault on them by the transgender lobby.  But they are now back at work.  Italy has just passed a law against Femicide, which means the murder of women.  Why do feminists need this law when it is already against the law to murder any gender?  

I suppose the reason could be that a misogynist is worse than a murderer and that a man who kills a woman must be a misogynist and deserving of punishment by a special law that includes murder and being a misogynist.  I suppose we will soon see laws to forbid transgendercide, homosexualcide, but not for “toxic” white heterosexual men, who will be the one human safe to kill.  See this.

It seems curious that the law only applies to murder and not to rape.  For many years European governments, such as the British, Swedish, and Norwegian, have steadfastly refused to protect their women from rape by immigrant-invaders by enforcing the law prohibiting rape.  In effect, immigrant-invaders have acquired de facto rights to the bodies of white European women.  Possibly this indicates that people of color have higher status than white women in the Tower of Babel that now comprises Western civilization.  Not long ago I reported on a European court ruling that dismissed rape charges against two immigrant-invaders on the grounds that their rape of a white woman was just an expression of their cultural values and in their value system did not qualify as a crime.  So why isn’t murder just an expression of cultural values?

From the standpoint of  the international movement for the Elimination of Violence against Women, it seems that rape does not count as violence against women. The AP writer reporting the story lays the blame for violence against women on “Italy’s patriarchal culture.”   In other words, it is the white toxic male’s fault that immigrant-invaders rape white women.

 Does the law apply if the murderer of a woman is a woman?

What if an American black woman is raped by immigrant-invaders.  Is this the fault of white toxic males?

The post Feminists Find a New Complaint: Femicide appeared first on LewRockwell.

Modern western culture is an absolute anomaly in the history of human civilization. If one studies the principles and doctrines of nearly every other society and empire around the world, you will not find one that allows mass immigration of foreigners with contrary ideologies. You will not find one that allows foreigners to migrate without strict assimilation and loyalty.

From the Arab states, to China, South Korea, and Japan (until recently), to India and beyond, every culture maintains a strict sense of supremacy. There is an absolute expectation that newcomers will adapt to political policies, belief systems, social norms, etc. Most of the world for thousands of years has operated in this way. Only the modern west deviates and only the west is chastised as “xenophobic” for establishing barriers to foreign influence.

The US in particular has been typecast as a “global melting pot”, even though the vast majority of immigration up until the last half of the 20th century was from other western nations with similar beliefs and traditions. The melting pot theory was largely promoted and glorified by socialist elites in the early 1900s and was not a value of the common American.

Israel Zangwill (a British-Jewish Broadway playwright and devout socialist/supporter of feminism) popularized the term nationally in 1908. Even then, he spoke specifically about various European cultures coming to America.

The “melting pot” was never about inviting millions of people from the third-world with utterly exclusive and hostile ideologies. This notion did not become popular until recently.

What happened? When did it become America’s “duty” to adopt the problem children of the rest of the planet? And why is western civilization the only civilization that is expected to be submissive to the concept of multiculturalism?

This topic is at the very root of nearly every political conflict raging today. The ICE raids, the foreign travel bans, the use of the National Guard to deter organized interference of deportations, the recent terror attack in Washington DC, the increasing calls by Democrats and woke activists for violent “resistance” – All of it goes back to the notion that America is SUPPOSED to welcome anyone and everyone, legal or illegal, from any part of the world regardless of the threat they might pose to our society.

Progressives, for various reasons, furiously insist that America is THE melting pot. That this is our national heritage and that anyone who says otherwise is a “fascist” trying to fundamentally change our cultural foundations.

NGOs and globalist foundations spend billions of dollars to facilitate mass immigration to the US, often in violation of the will of the voting public and the administrations in power. They also fund the majority of activist groups trying to disrupt deportations.

Global governance organizations like the UN spend vast sums of money to enable illegal immigration into the US, providing subsidies, maps, and legal advice to migrants seeking to sneak into America or exploit loopholes for temporary residency.

A number of foreign governments (mainly India and Mexico) lobby the US government to open the floodgates, expanding visa programs and allowing non-citizens to take American jobs, housing and other resources.

The “melting pot” has been poisoned with a rancid cocktail of nefarious agendas. Any positive vestiges of the ideal have been lost. Any value the melting pot might have once had is gone. All that is left is an army of parasites looking for blood; a swarm of mosquitoes rushing in to latch onto a vein. Few if any of these people or institutions care about the “American Dream”, they only see the US as an easy target ripe for conquest.

We have made ourselves an easy target. Our faith in liberalism has led us down a dark path of suicidal empathy. We naively assumed that “tolerance” is a virtue; it is not. Tolerance is a luxury – A luxury for the ultra wealthy and the extraordinarily dimwitted.

No other culture on Earth worships tolerance like westerners do, and there’s a good reason for that. In the case of the US, our ancestors already invested their blood and tears and treasure into this nation to make it the most wealthy and successful in the world. We have been living off their labors for generations.

The people that want to give that civilizational wealth away are people who lack respect for the trials and tribulations required to obtain it.

Another problem is that our tolerance often goes unappreciated because it is not a virtue for any other culture, either. The third world sees tolerance as weakness and opportunity. Many foreign social belief systems, from Judaism, to Hinduism to Islam, carry an ancient code of tribalism, an insider/outsider mentality of supremacy which is admonished in modern western thought but tolerated in immigrants.

For third worlders, a culture which is tolerant is fair game for exploitation and perhaps even invasion. You will consistently see foreign groups in the US argue that they are indeed American, but at the same time they will declare allegiance to their nation of origin. Their love of America is based on their love of the WEALTH they can derive from America. They’re laughing all the way to the closest Western Union.

Most have no interest in our principles and our heritage. They see America as an economic zone, a global commons with resources to be tapped. In other words, foreigners see immigration as a fishing business, a means to gain access to a largely unprotected wealth pool created by a culture with more historic merit and more success. They have been gathering their nets for quite some time.

In 2024 the US government under Joe Biden spent over $72 billion on foreign aid with another $26 billion in supplementals. India and Mexico transfer around $100 billion total in remittance from the US each year (foreign workers sending money back home). A number of officials with ethnic roots in these countries regularly argue in favor of continued visas and mass immigration while claiming it’s “for the good of Americans.”

Again, their loyalty is to their culture of origin first and America last.

For progressives and globalists immigration is also about wealth, primarily the redistribution of it from middle-class and upper-class Americans into foreign coffers. They see the common American people (conservatives) as a thorn in their side that needs to be removed. The draining of our buying power and living standards is a stepping stone to cultural deconstruction.

Mass immigration is a tool for social change. Multiculturalism erases national pride and the concept of protected borders. For if we are overwhelmed by the third world, who is going to care about maintaining the borders of our nation anymore? We might as well let the whole thing collapse, right?

They openly admit to this agenda, it’s not a secret. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Black-pilled nihilists will say that we’ll “do nothing”, but I’m not really interested in the opinions of conservatives who have given up. They are just as responsible for our troubles as progressives. They are weaklings and cowards.

Donald Trump’s recent declaration of a ban on third world immigration is at least bringing the topic to the average American dinner table. It’s been a long time since we had a real national reexamination of the “melting pot” idea. And, from my observations the use of mass deportations is gathering vast support among the American public.

I really don’t think officials living in the bubble of DC or mainstream journalists suffering from delusions of influence realize just how deep the anger goes when it comes to foreign exploitation and foreign influence over American society. I would suggest that there are tens of millions of patriots on the verge of walking out the door tomorrow to wage war on leftists and illegal immigrants should the obstructions of deportations continue.

The naysayers just don’t get how fed up people are becoming. Third world enclaves in places like Minneapolis and Dearborne don’t get it, either. Our tolerance is rapidly melting away, faster than the melting pot can be filled. The era of liberalism is over. The era of western multiculturalism is about to be stamped out. Mark my words, we are on the precipice of a reckoning.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post America’s Poison Melting Pot and the Luxury of Tolerance appeared first on LewRockwell.

The government shutdown “proved an argument that conservatives have been making for 45 years: The U.S. Department of Education is mostly a pass-through for funds that are best managed by the states.” The most significant thing about this statement in a November 16 USA Today editorial is not its substance. As the editorial’s author points out, the argument presented is not new.

The most significant thing about the statement is that its author is Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Unlike many in DC, Secretary McMahon backs up her words with action. She is dismantling the Department of Education, fulfilling one of President Trump’s campaign promises.

Since President Trump and Secretary McMahon cannot close the department absent authorizing legislation — legislation that appears unlikely to pass in the current Congress, Secretary McMahon is gutting the department by transferring responsibility for most of its functions to other parts of the government. Secretary McMahon has moved to the Labor Department the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers 27 K-12 grant programs, and the office of Postsecondary Education, which administers 14 programs aimed at helping college students, as well as several other programs. The Interior Department will manage the Indian education program, while the State Department will manage the federal foreign language education program. The Department of Education will, for the time being, ensure schools are complying with federal civil rights laws.

Spreading education programs among several different departments may reduce spending. For example, it could spur Congress to stop wasting millions of dollars a year on public relations for the Education Department. However, it does not necessarily reduce federal involvement in education. Therefore, those of us committed to restoring control over education to local communities must continue to advocate for eliminating all federal education programs. The billions spent by the federal government on “improving” education have had the opposite effect. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 72 percent of American eighth graders are below proficient in math and 70 percent are below proficient in reading.

America’s education system cannot be fixed by another No Child Left Behind style reform imposed on local schools by federal politicians and bureaucrats. Instead, the only way to “fix” American education is to restore control to local communities, school boards, and — most of all — parents.

This is why all who care about quality education should celebrate the continued growth of homeschooling. According to Angela R. Watson of the Institute for Education Policy at Johns Hopkins University, homeschooling in the 2024-25 school year “continued to grow across the United States, increasing at an average rate of 5.4 percent.”

Parents looking for a homeschooling curriculum incorporating the ideas of liberty should consider my online curriculum. My curriculum provides students with a solid education in history, literature, mathematics, and the sciences. It also gives students the opportunity to create their own websites and internet-based businesses. This provides students with “real world” entrepreneurial experience that will be useful no matter what career paths they choose.

The curriculum is designed to be self-taught, with students helping, and learning from, each other via online forums. Starting in the fourth grade, students are required to write at least one essay a week. Students also take a course in public speaking.

The curriculum emphasizes the history, philosophy, and economics of liberty, but it never substitutes indoctrination for education. The goal is to produce students with superior critical thinking skills. If you think my curriculum may meet the needs of your child, please visit www.RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information.

The post Progress in the Fight for Educational Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.