Lew Rockwell Institute

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Intercept

The post Israel Agrees to the Ceasefire It Rejected Months Ago, Thousands More Died appeared first on LewRockwell.

Warmongering neocon clown David Brooks writes in the War Street Journal that Hegseth’s hearing in Congress over his nomination as defense secretary “made me sick to my stomach.”

Let’s do the compassionate thing and send Brooks some barf bags and Dramamine at his War Street Journal address.

The post Another Medal on Pete Hegseth’s Chest appeared first on LewRockwell.

Deion Sanders, head coach of the University of Colorado football team, says his son Shedeur, the quarterback for the team, and Travis Hunter, this year’s Heisman Trophy winner, never once stepped foot in a University of Colorado classroom during their time there.  They did everything online.  Both will be top NFL draft choices, maybe even top five, in the spring.  This probably saved these two young men from years of incessant left-wing communistic propagandizing and indoctrination that all other University of Colorado students are subjected to.

The post The Current State of “Student Athletes” appeared first on LewRockwell.

The totalitarian Demo-Bolshevik party politicians have been grilling Trump’s appointees like Pam Bondi, his attorney general nominee, about whether she will “go after” what they call “Trump’s political opponents.”  Her answers should have been “Yes, if they have broken the law.”  Which of course they all have with their disgraceful Third World dictator-style of “lawfare.”  What they are really saying is that “Since we are Demo-Bolsheviks, we are by definition morally superior to everyone else and should therefore be exempt from all criminal activity if it allows us to remain in power forever. With us, the ends justify the means after all.”

The post Once a Totalitarian, Always a Totalitarian appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

The post Leading journalist calls Zuckerberg’s free speech announcement “an invitation to genocide” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

Bone chilling

The post 1961: Aldous Huxley on the power of Technology! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

France has only itself to blame.  Bringing people from third world nations that haven’t advanced in hundreds of years into one of the world’s most beautiful cities with a rich , unique cultural heritage doesn’t work. They will not and cannot assimilate any more than a Parisian could in Sudan. Nor are Westerners welcome in Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, et al.

Want to change the world for the better? Abolish the UN.

The post 250 African migrants occupy leftist-run Paris theater for 5 weeks, refuse to leave after free ‘welcome’ event appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Karl Marx spent his entire life avoiding work, sponging off his friends and family, burdening the lives of everyone he came into contact with, all because Marx wanted to overthrow the current regime (a subconscious rebellion against his parents) and install himself in the seat of ultimate power (as a way to avoid work). He didn’t care about the “workers”, his children, his wife, his parents, nor anybody else. All he cared about was himself, and today’s video will show you exactly what happened and why.

“Article mentioned in the video regarding the Industrial Revolution https://mises.org/mises-daily/popular…

“Clarification for 32:04. Some Hermeticists call the Christian God the ‘demiurgos’ (the Artisan), while others call the true immaterial God the ‘demiurgos’… you know, just to confuse us. Well, for the purposes of this video, the name isn’t important. What matters is that, as a Hermeticist, Marx is looking to overcome the ‘material’ God and get to the true ‘immaterial’ God. So if in doubt, just ignore where I said “and they call him the Demiurgos”.

Another superb, first-class analysis by the gentleman many consider one of the most penetrating, in-depth, and scholarly Internet historians.

The post The REAL ‘life’ of KARL MARX appeared first on LewRockwell.

On December 1, 2024, Elon Musk decreed: “Cancel culture has been canceled.” Musk had his reasons for saying this. After all the mainstream media, the Deep State, and the Big Tech had tried to cancel Trump in every way, he had just won a landslide victory in the presidential election. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., also a target of massive cancellation for years, helped in this Trump victory and was nominated as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Musk himself was also instrumental in this victory, by buying Twitter/X and giving room to many – but not all – expressions of ideas that were previously canceled on this social network. But the main reason was that Trump’s victory marked a tremendous defeat for Wokism, which had until then been the main motivator of dissident cancellations and is the main declared enemy of Musk – who lost a son to this perverse ideology.

But is Cancel Culture really over? And would this end be something good or bad? For a long time we have seen the entire right wing, from conservatives to libertarians, complaining about the so-called Cancel Culture as an unacceptable attack on freedom. However, in addition to Cancel Culture not being an assault on freedom, it is the only way to achieve and maintain a free society.

The cancellation of a person occurs as follows. When someone is caught in an act or expresses an opinion that is considered intolerable by an organized group, this group starts a campaign to expose that person as someone socially inadequate, putting pressure on their personal relationships and even demanding that their employer fire them. Any person or company that continues to maintain relationships with the canceled party is also threatened with being canceled. If the state does not get involved – as happened in Trump’s cancellation and the censorship of social media – and no coercion is used, cancellation is compatible with libertarian ethics – even if that person loses friends, relationships, job, business, and social media profiles.

The problem is that Cancel Culture was dominated by progressives and was being used against correct and healthy ideas and, in this way, was moving us away from a free and dignified society. For example, until recently, saying that a man does not become a woman by declaring that he is a woman – and vice versa – led to cancellation. The threat of cancellation has led this absurd idea to dominate educational institutions, media conglomerates, the corporate and financial world, advertising agencies, sports federations, Hollywood and governments, with devastating social effects, especially for children who are victims of mutilations and irreversible hormone treatments.

However, not only can we, but we must use Cancel Culture against these wrong and harmful ideas. Anyone who says that a man turns into a woman by declaring himself to be a woman – and vice versa – deserves and should be canceled. He must be boycotted, both professionally and socially. Of course, everyone should be free to say what they want, but at the same time, everyone should also be free to dissociate themselves from people who defend false, degenerate, and pernicious ideas, or simply ideas considered unpleasant.

When analyzing Cancel Culture from the reverse perspective, it is difficult to understand how it gained a bad reputation among the right. It seems like a case of “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, rejecting a good method because of a dirt that is contaminating it. Much aversion was aroused by the successive cancellations of people who were only telling the truth and defending adequate and decent ideas. However, the procedure, limited to the private social boycott, is not only valid, but necessary, especially for libertarians engaged in the culture war. Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches us that privately owned capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism cannot be combined and

“… that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social II discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.”

The session in which Hoppe expounds this strategy is considered controversial by many libertarians, especially when he speaks of “physically removed”, but it is an undeserved polemic, the result of misinterpretation, because he was talking about private neighborhoods, the relationship between tenants and landlords with prior covenants between private property owners, and did not advocate any aggression against property rights. On the contrary, he fully defends the right to private property and its corollary right to discriminate. And “if one wants to reach the goal of a private property anarchy (or a pure private law society)” he proposes that “true libertarians must embrace discrimination” by exercising the right to evict whomever they want from their property. ” Without continued and relentless discrimination, a libertarian society would quickly erode and degenerate into welfare state socialism.”

In opposing Cancel Culture, Philipp Bagus et al. deals with academic freedom, and indeed, no idea should ever be canceled in universities or in any teaching environment. By the way, when discussing in the classroom the concept of time preference of homosexuals, Hoppe himself was one of the first canceled by microaggressions – an event that put an end his career as a university professor. However, although we must promote the study and discussion of transgenderism, Nazism, communism, democracy and all kinds of spurious and harmful ideas, we can and should also cancel those who defend these ideas. Actually, it is more important to cancel a teacher who espouses these ideas than, for example, a plumber or doctor, as teachers have the potential to negatively influence hundreds of students per school year. In fact, the more influential a voice is, the more fundamental and urgent its cancellation.

Recently, libertarian institutions that have always opposed Cancel Culture have been criticized for canceling one of their oldest and most prestigious members. But cancellation is not only a valid mechanism, but it is necessary for libertarians to cancel any Zionist who advocates land theft, ethnic cleansing, and the murder of innocents. Hoppe says that sometimes “a small dose of ridicule and contempt may be all that is needed to contain the relativistic and egalitarian threat,” but if one insists on espousing sadistic and genocidal ideas, “in civilized society, the ultimate price … is expulsion, and all-around ill-behaved or rotten characters (even if they commit no criminal offense) will find themselves quickly expelled from everywhere and by everyone and become outcasts, physically removed from civilization. This is a stiff price to pay; hence, the frequency of such behavior is reduced.”

The only problem with non-aggressive Cancel Culture is that it was dominated by progressives. We should only use it for good and cancel anyone and everyone who advocates multiculturalism, egalitarianism, Zionism, “hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism.”

The post For a Libertarian Cancel Culture appeared first on LewRockwell.

My big-picture outlook is that America with its quasi world empire has been following in the footsteps of the warmongering British Empire. That road is leading to America’s premature downfall. I suppose others have noticed the striking similarity between the two “Anglo-Saxon” great powers in their approach to the outside world.

On the American side, some have pointed to the Great War and Woodrow Wilson as pivotal. I have suggested that the Spanish American war (1898) was the real turning point for the U.S. Why? Because it began the road to empire…Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and briefly Cuba. This makes me an “isolationist” in the mind of small minds.

On the British side, one could say the Boer War (1900) laid the groundwork for England’s road to ruin. Like the Spanish-American war, the Boer War was an unnecessary war of choice and hubris. Washington should have left Spain alone. London should have left the Boers alone in their self-governing South African republics.

I vote for the Great War (1914-18) as the critical turning point for England from which there was no return. Many books have been written to explain which country was most responsible for the outbreak of the Great War after decades of general European peace and prosperity.

Recently, there is Margaret MacMillan’s wonderful The War that Ended Peace (2014). Earlier, there was Professor Sidney Bradshaw Fay’s magisterial The Origins of the World War (1928). My own view is that England was most responsible for the general European conflict and then the world war. See the  Unauthorized World Situation Report (2020)…

“It is rather late in the day, granted, but perhaps we can learn something from the track record of the British, especially from their mistakes. In a previous age, the British went everywhere for various reasons, some good some bad, and created along the way the greatest empire the world has ever seen or ever will see.

“The problem is, at the start of the 20th century they lost perspective on what they were doing and why. Again, all roads lead to The Great War. In the summer of 1914, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, could have halted the slide to war in Europe by simply asking the French to calm down and by suggesting to Tsar Nicholas II that he have a serious talk with his cousin-in-law, The Kaiser, a grandson of Queen Victoria, about the regicide in the Balkans, and for them to work out a deal between Vienna and Serbia.

“Instead, the British Ambassador in Moscow, Sir George Buchanan, was urging Russian mobilization in response to Austria’s moves against Serbia. In those bygone days, mobilization meant war. Without the Czar succumbing to England’s mischief-making in Moscow, there would have been no outbreak of a general European conflagration in August 1914.

“The retreat from war could have been accomplished, but it was not on the agenda because Sir Edward and other short-sighted leaders in Whitehall took the attitude that Germany was a danger to British Empire preeminence in the world.”

Sound familiar? It seems to me that Washington, like Whitehall before it, is constantly on the lookout anything which might eclipse or potentially threatened its world hegemony. This is unashamedly stated in the grandiose, so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine.  A sample:

“…The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. 

“In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

This full-throated taste of imperialism, along with Israel-promotion without qualification, is the driving force of neo-conservatism. It is simply a form of bullying and lording it over others. That is the essence of U.S. foreign policy.

That’s what England did until it over-extended itself and imploded after the Second World War. Please bear in mind that without the Great War, which Lord Grey could have prevented, there would have been no Second World War. These were two parts of the same war, which I have called British Empire wars. Absolutely unnecessary and a disaster.

America or Washington has the same mindset today against Russia and China. Indeed, it can be argued that America has been looking for a boogeyman of one kind or another ever since the Spanish-American war. This has made us predisposed to becoming employed first by England and now by Israel to take part in their wars for no rational reason of our own. It’s madness.

As for China, Washington’s boogyman of choice, nothing is going to stop it. By that I mean, its economic success. That success, Washington takes for granted as a threat. “…We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role….” Just like the gentlemen in Whitehall regarded the rise of Germany from the end of the 19th Century onwards. It’s a self-defeating obsession.

Recently, I splurged and bought the new Apple Mac Mini computer. With some customization, it took a few weeks for it to arrive at my front door. Where did the package come from? Directly from China, from a city I could not begin to pronounce. It was not trans-shipped from Apple HQ in Cupertino, California. Apple is a de facto Chinese company. All its products, or nearly all, are made in China. I doubt that the Mac Mini could even be produced in the USA.

You go to the matt with China with tariffs and sanctions, you cripple Apple, the world’s largest corporation. Ditto Amazon and Walmart. And you send inflation soaring. So why are we seriously even considering going down that road? See what Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett have to say about it.

Here’s what I think. I want China on my side. America needs China. I’m not suggesting a modus vivendi, but an outright alliance between the two countries. Actually, why not a tripartite economic pact with China, Japan and the U.S.? This has the added benefit of helping to prevent a territorial conflict in the South China Sea. But only, of course, if Washington get’s off its high-horse with respect to Taiwan, which Washington has officially recognized as part of China decades ago.

In short, let’s stop creating problems for ourselves and others, whether it be in the Far East, the Middle East or Eurasia. Let’s not go the way of the defunct British Empire. Let’s try to return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

The post America and the British Empire appeared first on LewRockwell.

I once represented a man charged with first-degree murder.  At the preliminary hearing, the courtroom was filled with the family and friends of the victim.

When my client was led out of the holding cell, the officer who brought him out leaned over and whispered to me: “Boy, it’s you against the world – you against the world.”

Today it’s Israel against the world, aided and abetted by the U.S. due to mega millions in campaign contributions.

On Nov. 20, the U.S. cast the only “No” vote in the U.N. Security Council against a call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The rest of the world has never been so united as it is now against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people.

Some American Christians are afraid to criticize Israel because it says in the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed.

But it also says in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that God wants us to “seek peace and pursue it.” And one of the strongest of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill.”

My own Christian beliefs lead me to believe that God will punish those who have killed – and are still killing – thousands of little children in Gaza.

Matthew 18 says Jesus called a little child to him and said, “ … whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in my name receives me.”

Israel killed another 28 people in Gaza on New Year’s Day, and Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on Jan. 2 that he was going to increase the number of bombing raids. Then 65 more were killed on Jan. 4.

It really saddens me, and at times angers me, to know that all this killing is being done with American-supplied bombs.

Longtime University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer has been one of the most respected foreign policy experts in this country.

He has also been one of the leading critics of the horribly cruel way that Israel has bombed, killed and starved to death many thousands of women and children in Gaza over the last 15 months.

On December 31, Mearsheimer wrote on Substack about the 179-page report Human Rights Watch issued a few days earlier detailing Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Also in December, Amnesty International published a 296-page report about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

A few days before the Amnesty report, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his defense minister for what the court, after a lengthy investigation, said were “crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

These very recent actions followed a finding early last year by the International Court of Justice that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

Mearsheimer wrote that he wonders what people “who have supported Israel’s genocide or remained silent tell themselves to justify their behavior and sleep at night. History will not treat them kindly.”

Genocide is defined as “violence that targets individuals because of their membership in a group and aims at the destruction of a people.”

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, established genocide as an international crime. The U.S. was one of the signers to this agreement.

This was done primarily in response to what had happened to the Jews in Europe during World War II. In fact, because of what happened then, you would think that the Jewish people would be the strongest opponents to genocide anyplace.

I think everyone realizes that the United States would be the first to act and would lead the campaign against this genocide if it was being done by any other country than Israel.

Another world-renowned foreign policy expert, Jeffrey Sachs, has also been one of Israel’s strongest critics during this war. (Actually, it is more of a slaughter than a war since it is so one-sided.)

Sachs, a longtime professor at Columbia and a Jew himself, said Netanyahu is “one of the most violent and dangerous people in the world.” He also said, “Netanyahu is leading Israel into the greatest insecurity of its modern history – complete diplomatic isolation.”

This originally appeared on The Knoxville Focus.

The post Israel Against The World – With U.S. Aid appeared first on LewRockwell.

Hitler’s beliefs were supremacist: Might makes right, and we are the mightiest; all who resist us are wrong and must therefore be crushed. Of course, Hitler stood for the German version of that. However, in the post-WW2 world, the U.S. Government has carried this banner. The ideology is essentially the same, but representing a different nation.

If Hitler had won, his next war would have followed soon thereafter and he would have easily conquered Japan. That’s not because Hirohito would have been any less of a racist-fascist-imperialist-capitalist supremacist than Hitler was, but because in a might-makes-right world, there will inevitably be wars between empires until only one remains standing. There can be only ONE king-of-the-hill. That’s part of the Might-makes-right principle. FDR rejected this principle and was designing, for the post-WW2 world, a democratic-federal-republic-of-all nations world government, having Executive, Legislative, and Judicial powers with enforcement means and military sufficient to enforce all international laws, to be called the “United Nations,” designed by him so as to outlaw and replace ALL empires, and thus to prevent any WW3; but his immediate successor Truman decided to sideline the U.N. that we have, as being, from him, a mere talking forum, because Truman planned for the U.S. Government itself to become the global dictatorship, ultimately to control all other Governments — to be the ONLY remaining empire — not for all empires to end and become replaced by a democratic federal republic U.N. reigning over democratically created international laws that have been voted into existence by all nations. President Truman took up Hitler’s fallen banner — but for America, not for Germany, to become the ruler of the world. So, instead of FDR’s planned U.N. global democracy of nations, we have Truman’s America’s aspiring global dictatorship of nations: the lone remaining empire, the U.S. regime.

America had emerged from WW2 as the unchallengeable leader of the world, because each of the other two anti-Hitler powers, England and Russia, were indebted to the U.S. for its crucial Lend-Lease aid that supplied the means by which the Soviet Union and UK were able to defeat Hitler. Without that Lend-Lease, Hitler would have won. By the time of the War’s end, UK was enormously weakened by WW2, and the Soviet Union was almost destroyed, from 23,000,000,000 to 27,000,000,000 of its people slaughtered by Hitler’s forces, as compared to fewer than 500,000 in each of the other two Big Three Allies. (China had at least 20 million killed by Hirohito, whom the now racist-fascist-imperialist-capitalist supremacist U.S. — President Truman himself — protected after the War. So, unlike Hitler, who had already killed himself, Hirohito stayed on his throne and wasn’t even prosecuted. The 20+ million Chinese he killed were okay to Truman. General Douglas MacArthur carried out Truman’s instructions and came up with an excuse for Hirohito: that his generals — who had actually been serving the Emperor — “had betrayed the Emperor.” And America’s ‘historians’ take MacArthur’s lie as being instead true.)

Truman thus came into office on 12 April 1945 as being the king-of-the-hill and he liked that, and wanted his country to remain that way and ultimately to conquer especially the Soviet Union, which he actually hated; so, on 25 July 1945, he made the irrevocable decision to start the Cold War against the Soviet Union; and, subsequently, he set up the military-industrial complex, the replacement of the U.S. War Department by the U.S. (permanent) ‘Defense’ Department, and the replacement of FDR’s weak OSS by Truman’s strong CIA, so as to make the U.S. become ultimately the dictator over the entire world. U.S. history after 12 April 1945 (FDR’s death) will have to be largely rewritten from what it now is, propagandistic lies mixed with selective truths so as to be the mythology of a ‘democratic’ and benign nation, into becoming instead the straight truths that explain today’s reality of the American version of Nazism, as it now is.

This is a hyper-military nation, which now spends 65% of the entire world’s military expenses, and which has 900 foreign military bases (in addition to 749 inside the U.S.), and which has had 244 active foreign military operations ever since the U.S.S.R. and its Warsaw Pact mirror to America’s NATO, and its communism, all ended in 1991 (that’s 31 years), and 297 such military operations ever since 1945 (that’s 77 years), whereas during 1798-1945 (147 years), there had been only 155 — which included both domestic and foreign wars in which the USA had participated during all of the 147 years 1798-1945. Compare that 1.05 U.S. wars per year during 1798-1945 to the 7.9 wars per year during 1991-2022. This is an astoundingly different and worse nation than it had been before Truman became its President. Furthermore, since the U.S. is getting such a bad reputation now from its many blatant military regime-change operations (invasions), it has been making increased usages of the other and secret methods — subversions and coups — as well as of illegal (not authorized by international law under the U.N.) sanctions, in order to coerce the nations that it is trying to conquer (its ‘enemies’, regardless of whether or not the targeted nation constitutes any conceivable actual national-security threat to the United States) — and therefore all of this is “aggression” under international law, and prohibited, though never punished, since the U.S. Government is immune to international laws (because Truman made it so).

Similarly, the U.S. Government’s military colony in the Middle East, Israel (which Truman created) is immune when it uses the billions of dollars of military equipment that the U.S. Government has been and is being donating to Israel to exterminate all 2.3 million Gazans — and the U.S. Government isn’t even being charged (like its colony of Israel is) with that crime of “genocide” there.

A 4-minute video of George Galloway and the “Syrian Girl” encapsulates how morally repulsive the U.S. empire actually is. How many ‘history’ books about post-WW2 U.S. history convey any of the reality that Galloway and “Syrian Girl” (the stunningly beautiful Maram Susli) discuss there? (Incidentally, the linked-to topic that she exposed there was also disproven by MIT’s Ted Postol, and NONE of the alleged Assad-chemical-weapons attacks in the U.S. 2011-started Syrian war were done by Assad’s Government.) A 23-minute video of Susli discussing the constant lies by U.S.-empire ‘news’-media about Syria’s Government is here (however, its first 2:50 — its Introduction — is in Arabic; all the rest of it is in English).

So, there is a lot of rewriting of post-1945 U.S. history that needs to be done. Otherwise, the entire academic profession of history will be, to a significant extent, itself a hoax as being at all scientific or truth-based or “history” instead of “lies.” Not ONLY the ‘news’-media in The West are lie-based, but the ‘history’ books likewise are. ONLY in a dictatorship does this happen, because if the public are overwhelmingly fed lies, then they can’t help but VOTE on the basis of lies — they become mental slaves, instead of merely physical slaves, to their slave-masters. This is America’s version of Hitler’s racist-fascist-imperialist-capitalist supremacism. And it is extremely profitable for America’s billionaires, who are heavily invested in the corporations such as Northrup Grumman that manufacture and sell to the Governments of U.S., Israel, etc., all of these extremely costly weapons.

On 8 November 2022, I headlined “U.S. and Allies Vote for Nazism at the UN” and opened:

Annually, each year, since 2005, the U.S. Government has been one of only from 1 to 3 Governments to vote in the U.N. General Assembly against an annual statement by the General Assembly against racism and other forms of bigotry — an annual Resolution condemning it, and expressing a commitment to doing everything possible to reduce bigoted acts. For the first time ever, on November 4th, America was joined not only by one or two voting against it, but 55 nations, and almost all gave as reasons that Russia was for the Resolution and has invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is the only country that has almost always been joining America in opposing such resolutions; and many countries now vote against the resolution because Ukraine always does, and thus vote in solidarity with Ukraine against Russia — condemn the resolution because Russia supports it.

This year’s Resolution particularly offended America and its allies because “Nazism” is mentioned and condemned specifically in it.

No specific nation is ever mentioned in such resolutions.

Even Israel — the nation that had cited Hitler’s genocide against Jews as ‘justifying’ the Zionists’ Nakba against Palestinians — was sometimes among the one or two nations that voted against the Resolution along with the United States.

The names and faces may change, but the ideology remains essentially the same.

Will Donald Trump bring peace like he promised he would? Did he when he was President? Is he a changed man? Is the moon made of green cheese? Who can believe such lies, repeated endlessly? Apparently, many people can.

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.

The post Today’s Government That Represents Hitlerism Is the U.S. Government appeared first on LewRockwell.

“So-called progressives finally achieved what they supposedly warned of but in truth wished for: the eviction of the affluent descendants of colonizers, the incineration of their homes, and the destruction of a city that, more than any other, represents our bloody history of white supremacy and conquest.” — Michael Shellenberger

For those in the USA with an interest in collapsing the USA, the Los Angeles fire is the gift that will keep on giving, and George Soros hardly had to cough up a dime to make it happen. From the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion angle, the fire got‘er done, cleansing nearly the entire PacPal population of snooty, rich, white “allies” of the oppressed and marginalized — who will now have LA to themselves. Chez Whitey is “closed for renovations,” and it might be twenty years before it can re-open, if ever.

Probably never, if the California Coastal Commission has anything to say about it. And why wouldn’t they? They do not generally approve of stuff getting built right up on the beach. They were probably all down on their knees Sunday in the Church of Luxury Belief thanking Climate Jeezus for sweeping Malibu and the hills above it clean.

Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis, rent her garments in The New York Times Sunday op-ed page, wailing:

“My anger over what we have done to this fragile, exquisite Earth was muffled by grief until the other evening when I was watching a news program that had a panel of commentators. The subject was Los Angeles on fire, and one person mentioned climate change as a cause. Another commentator smirked and said he didn’t believe it was the cause.

I felt rage surge up past my grief.

My first thought was: “You think you know more than scientists?”

Of course, my first thought reading that was: Who is paying those scientists? The same question you might ask of the scientists at the CDC, NIH, FDA, and NIAID who declared that Covid-19 was definitely not created in a Wuhan lab, and the mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective.” My second thought was: could you possibly find a better example of elite Utopian-Woke performative acting-out? My third thought was: since when are “experts” infallible? My fourth thought was: doesn’t science advance on the basis of continuous argument? My fifth thought was: if Patti Davis is watching the news, she must be in some comfortable and probably luxurious place that did not burn down. So much for my thoughts, entertained without the rending of garments.

More to the point of the fire itself, you must wonder what is happening to those tens of thousands of displaced persons and families right now? How many of them are sleeping out on their smoldering properties, or in their cars, or just shivering on a sidewalk somewhere. It does not seem possible that they all found a place to go, certainly not at their neighbors’ houses, who were all burnt-out, too. . . and there are just so many hotel rooms not occupied by “the undocumented.” Anyway, how many families can stay in hotel rooms that go for $1,000-a-night, and for how many nights? How many of them lost absolutely everything, including the possibility of a future?

Which gets you to the realization that we have barely begun to see the knock-on effects of this catastrophe. Those tens of thousands of the burnt-out will not be reporting to work anytime soon. They will have all they can do to find a roof over their heads while they hassle with FEMA officials, State of California bureaucrats, insurance company claims agents, and other “helpers.” The rebuilding quandaries have already been rehearsed in the news. Even if politicians suspended all the building and zoning codes, and the tax issues, where will so many contractors come from in any reasonable time-frame? And where do you put all that melted plastic goop and toxic ash that remains on-the-ground where peoples’ lives used to be?

If you lost a house valued at $5-million, it will cost you at least $10-million to replace it. Good luck, even if you were a mid-level movie star. Of course, if your insurance got cancelled lately — or you just didn’t have any because it cost too much — then there is zero chance you will get to even fantasize about living in the hills above Malibu ever again. And that job you’re not able to go to right now due to the pressing needs of sheer survival on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. . . you might never go to that job again. The business you worked for might not be there anymore, either.

If there was ever a proverbial last-grain-of-sand-in-a-landslide, the Great 2025 Los Angeles Fire must be a sure thing vis-a-vis the US economy, especially the financial side of it. An awful lot of homeowners will not be paying their mortgages on a smoldering empty lot. The banks are not in super-fabulous condition these days. How many loans-gone-bad will it take to wreck already unstable banks? And, by the way, the collateral isn’t even there anymore. The re-po man is out of the picture.

What happens to the insurance companies? And the re-insurance companies who theoretically stand behind the insurers? I’ll tell you what happens: they will be backstopped by the government, which doesn’t have the money to backstop them. . . but will create it out of pixels on screens. . . which means expect a considerable uptick in inflation (i.e., a downtick in the purchasing power of the dollar), which will be a black eye for the new Trump administration. How does all this thunder through the US economy as a whole?

Nobody really knows just yet, but the signs are not reassuring. You can infer countless chains-of-consequence. Friday’s action in the financial markets felt like a tremor of things to come. The Bubble-of All-Bubbles abides. . . for how long?

Reprinted with permission from JamesHowardKunstler.com.

The post Climate Jeezus Taketh Away appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you’re serious about emergency preparedness, one topic that should be on your radar is EMP-proof vehicles. An EMP, or electromagnetic pulse, can disrupt or even destroy electronic devices, leaving modern cars inoperable. Imagine cruising down the road when suddenly every electronic device in your car goes kaput—no more radio, no more navigation, and worst of all, no more engine.

Key Takeaways

• Understanding the various phases of an EMP, like E1, E2, and E3, is important. Each phase has its own challenges and vulnerabilities, impacting electronic devices and infrastructure in distinct ways.
• EMPs can have catastrophic effects on modern vehicles, which are heavily reliant on electronic systems.
• EMP-proof vehicles incorporate essential features like Faraday cage protection, redundant systems, manual controls, shielded wiring, and simplified electronics.
• Modifying a vehicle for EMP resilience involves steps like installing Faraday cages, surge protectors, shielded wiring, and manual overrides.

This article explains what makes a vehicle EMP-proof, how to modify your ride for resilience, and the options available. By preparing your transportation to withstand EMPs, you ensure a key aspect of your readiness strategy remains intact, enabling you to maintain autonomy in the face of unpredictable threats.

Understanding EMP and Its Phases

An EMP stands for Electromagnetic Pulse. It’s a burst of electromagnetic radiation that can disrupt, damage, or destroy electronic devices and systems.

EMPs can be caused by natural events such as solar flares or by human-made devices like nuclear weapons detonated in the atmosphere.

The pulse can induce current and voltage surges in electronic circuits, damaging or destroying sensitive components such as microchips and transistors.

This disruption can have widespread effects on telecommunications, power grids, transportation systems, and other critical infrastructure.

The 3 Phases of EMPs

EMP events are often discussed in terms of three phases:

The E1 phase is the initial, extremely fast pulse of electromagnetic energy that occurs within nanoseconds after a nuclear detonation or other high-energy event.

This phase is characterized by its high intensity and ability to damage or destroy electronic components by inducing high voltages and currents. It primarily affects semiconductor devices like integrated circuits and transistors.

The E2 phase follows the E1 phase and typically lasts for microseconds to milliseconds. It consists of a slower pulse of electromagnetic energy, similar to a strong burst of lightning.

While the E2 phase is less intense than the E1 phase, it can still cause damage to electronic equipment, particularly power lines, and long conductors.

The E3 phase lasts from seconds to hours and results from the Earth’s magnetic field interacting with ionized particles from a nuclear explosion. It causes a geomagnetic storm effect, disrupting power grids and transmission lines.

Unlike the E1 and E2 phases, which directly affect electronic devices, the E3 phase focuses more on the power infrastructure itself.

To give you a better and clearer idea, here’s a table comparing the different phases of EMPs.

Comprehensive List of EMP Proof Vehicles

While a true “EMP-proof” vehicle might be a myth, understanding which ones are more resilient can be a game-changer in your preparedness plan. Here’s a breakdown of the different categories of vehicles known for their EMP resilience.

Military Vehicles with EMP Protection

Military vehicles are often designed with EMP protection in mind, incorporating features like Faraday cages, metal shielding, and EMP hardening initiatives.

These measures aim to ensure that the vehicles maintain operational integrity during an EMP attack.

Studies show that modern military vehicles with high electronic and electrical integration face significant threats from EMPs. Design strategies should enhance electromagnetic protection by configuring around electrical discontinuities like windows and gaps.

Notably, military vehicles like Humvees have undergone rigorous testing and include upgraded chassis and protection systems to withstand EMPs to a certain extent. However, they are not completely impervious to such threats.

Military vehicles are often designed with EMP protection due to the nature of modern warfare. Here are some key features of these robust machines:

1. HMMWV (Humvee): Designed with EMP resilience in mind, potentially including features that enhance their ability to function after an EMP event.
2. MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected): Due to their role in modern warfare, MRAP design might incorporate features that offer some degree of electromagnetic shielding. This could include strategic use of metal in the chassis or compartments housing critical systems.
3. JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle): The design of JLTVs may incorporate features that enhance their ability to function after an EMP event, potentially including some level of electromagnetic shielding and surge protection for critical systems.
4. Stryker Armored Vehicle:The design of Stryker vehicles likely prioritizes EMP resilience, potentially including hardened communication and control systems to improve their chances of functioning after an EMP event.
5. M1 Abrams Tank:  The M1 Abrams tank design likely prioritizes EMP resilience to protect critical electronic warfare systems and core operational controls, potentially including features that enhance their ability to function after an EMP event.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Ultimate Guide to EMP Proof Vehicles for an EMP Attack appeared first on LewRockwell.

What does it say about a society when its scholars turn increasingly to studies of the downfall of civilizations, the end of empires, the concept of human extinction, and even “existential risk”?  That scholarly attention in both Europe and America turned to something that was labeled “collapsology” in 2015, and an academic volume of Futures in January 2023 listed the existing literature on “societal collapse” as 361 peer-reviewed articles and 73 books since 2010? That the Wikipedia entry on “Existential Risk Studies” has 670,000 links?  And that JSTOR, the basic digital library of academic journals worldwide, in 2020 listed 66,809 results for articles on “human extinction”–and in 2025 listed 153,885.

I don’t know about you, but to me it suggests that a lot of smart folks are worrying about something the majority of people sense is in the deep background of life but most don’t want even to think about,  much less confront:  Western civilization, and perhaps the whole of the world, faces an imminent end, with one possibility being a tragedy so vast—nuclear warfare, global overheating, overwhelming disease pandemics—that it ends human life on earth.  And only scholars care.

One branch of this new wave of intellectual attention has been the study of the reasons for societal collapse, including a close study of the lifespan of empires and civilizations in the past.  One exhaustive search by Luke Kemp, a BBC correspondent and a professor at the Cambridge University—get this—Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, was published in 2019, and he found an average lifespan, of societies from the Akkadian empire of the 24th century BC down to the modern age, of 336 years.  It is very difficult to find an exact date for the “rise” of anything so complex as a civilization and often of its “fall,” though in the case of coinciding empires it is sometimes easier to find the date when one king or emperor comes to the throne and when the last such office existed, so such an exact figure must be taken as suggestive only.

That 336 figure suggests that underlying each civilization is an inherent fragility, and many scholars, following Joseph Tainter, whose definitive Collapse of Complex Societies came out in 1990, suggest that it is the inevitable complexity of such societies that leads to their fall.  Civilizations begin with an aggregation of traits, each with some complications, and as they develop they tend to create larger societies, more developed governments, greater bureaucracies, multiple armies, and still a wider array of problems, until the whole edifice begins to stretch and crack. Collapse, says Kemp, is “a normal phenomenon for civilizations, regardless of their size and shape,” and greater size is not a defense “against societal dissolution.”

Or, taken another way, there are inevitable limits to the growth of civilizations, and once those limits are passed—a condition modern ecologists call “overshoot”—there is no survival possible.  An interesting study on exactly those lines, Limits to Growth by a team of MIT scientists in 1972, showed by computer analysis that “if the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime in the next one hundred years,” probably around 2020—30.  An update by this group in 2004 found no reason to change this prediction—indeed, it argued that the case for overshoot was even stronger than before. Obviously there has been no change since then in humankind’s “growth trends,” so the limits are very near to being reached right now.

And how long do we have?  Well, that 336 years figure for the duration of civilizations doesn’t help us much.  In our society, what we may call Western civilization, 336 years ago was 1689,  not a very significant year for either European or American history, and nothing about it to suggest the beginning of a fixed society.  And if we regard our civilization as beginning in, say, the 16th century with the rise of nationhood, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the beginnings of capitalism, we overshot 336 years a century ago in the late 19th-century.  So that’s a meaningless number for us today.

It does suggest, however, a different number: the reformation began with the Lutherean theses in 1519; the high Renaissance may be dated from Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel in 1512 and his Laurentian Chapel in 1525; nationalism may be dated to the battle of Pavia in 1525 creating the Spanish state and the simultaneous end of the Peasants’ War; Durer’s Course in the Art of Measurement in 1525, the first book on mathematics written (in German) for the general public; Durer in 1516 celebrated the rise of European scholarship with a copper engraving of Erasmus, “the Prince of Humanism”; and the first publication of Galen’s classical book on treating diseases was published by the Aldine Press in Venice in 1515.

Thus it can be fairly said that the modern European civilization of which we are the inheritors today began in the early 16th century—500 years ago.

That figure 500 has been taken by other scholars as  the general duration of civilizations, examples including the Ancient Egypt Old Kingdom, Minorca, Xia and Shang dynasties in China, Phoenicia, Etruscans, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, First Chera Empire in India, Early Chola Dynasty, and Parthian Empire.  That fits nicely with our civilization—and thus predicts the beginning of the collapse as probably already having occurred, and 2025 as a fitting year for its terminus.

Nor should that idea come as much of a surprise.  Look around: not a stable nation in the lot, some veering toward a right-wing patriotism yearning for the past, others  drowning their cultures in immigration, some in total collapse.  Not a single nation with any concept at all of how to deal with global overheating, scheduled to rise to life-threatening levels before this decade is out.  Not a one with a coherent, agreed-upon vision of the future that might give the rising generations a reason to hope—except maybe Trump’s dream of reliving the Eisenhower years.

January starts with an absolutely devastating Los Angeles fire, a perfect symbol of collapse, and possibly itself a trigger to economic disasters elsewhere, while much of the rest of the country is in record freezing temperatures. (Some say the earth will end in fire, some say in ice.) Many of us will survive, in a withered world, but we might begin to prepare now for new lives in new ways, and perhaps with more humility, community, and faith.

The post Are We Nearing the End? appeared first on LewRockwell.

If we study the problems outside the force-field of mythological beliefs, we find that there are no systemic solutions, there are only partial, local solutions.

The status quo rests on a foundational belief that all problems, regardless of their nature, can be solved by technology, the market or the government (i.e. the state), or some combination of these three.

Which one is the paramount solution depends on the specifics of the problem, of course, but what’s proposed as a solution also depends on which of the three has gained our primary loyalty: to true believers in technology, there’s always a tech fix. To true believers in the market, unleashing the market will fix any problem. To true believers in the power of the state, the Savior State is always the go-to solution.

These solutions transform from practical toolboxes into mythologies when they become simplified belief structures, in effect articles of faith populated with heathens, heretics, true believers, taboos and excommunication. The limits of each toolbox are set aside in favor of a belief in the unlimited magical powers of the tools.

We know we’ve entered the realm of mythologies when expressing doubts about the efficacy of tech, the market or the state unleashes an infuriated indignation that the gods of tech, the market and the state are being questioned, even as the proof of their powers are everywhere.

The difference between a toolbox and a mythology is every tool has limits, where mythology has no limits. If we’re trying to drive nails with a handsaw, we’re not going to find much success. We’re forced to admit the tool isn’t going to solve the problem.

But once we’re embedded in a mythological structure, then we see play-acting as a legitimate solution. So a diesel-fueled robot that roams the fields zapping weeds with lasers is the “solution” to food insecurity. See, there’s a tech solution to every problem. But the robot–AI!–can’t make it rain, or stop the windstorm that destroyed the harvest, or nurture the depleted soil. The robot is a phantom solution, a “solution” that meets the requirements of the mythology–there must be a tech solution–but doesn’t actually solve the problem of food insecurity, which is complex, structural and systemic.

Read the Whole Article

The post What If Tech, the Market and the State Are No Longer Solutions? appeared first on LewRockwell.

American security agencies have long used the cloak of national security to avoid accountability for their crimes, such as the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, and the numerous assassinations of foreign leaders and screw-ups.  Beginning with the Clinton regime, presidents and non-security appointees also began escaping accountability. The situation worsened in the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime, and it exploded in the Biden regime with the Attorney General, FBI, and Democrat state attorneys general and prosecutors using law as a weapon against Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters.  Many people were ruined financially.  Many were falsely imprisoned, and Trump himself had his reelection in 2020 stolen by the most brazen and obvious vote theft in American history. The evidence is clear that Biden himself is guilty of selling vice presidential and presidential influence with his son, Hunter, being the marketer and sharing the revenues.  Yet the US Department of Justice prevented any investigation and indictments  The whore American media covered up the story.

The practice of elevating high office holders to the privileged status of a king or an aristocracy above both the law and the US Constitution must not continue in the Trump regime.  If it does, high officials will have gained squatters’ rights in being above the law, and the US Constitution will be reduced to a dead document.

At this point, the only way a collapse of the rule of law in the US can be avoided is for the Trump regime to relentless prosecute the Department of Justice, FBI, and White House officials who selectively applied law in the form of lawfare against political opponents.  If those responsible avoid accountability, a legal precedent will have been established, and the differential rights and status based on race and gender that are already in place will be joined by special legal privileges for high government officials.  It would mean the end of any possibility of accountable government.

This should be the highest priority of the Trump regime.  It is even more important than closing the border.

On the war front Trump should simply walk away from conflict with Iran and Russia.  Wars distract from domestic matters and will prevent focus on making America great again. Wars will bring more propaganda about “terrorists” and more infringements of US civil liberty, which is not a path to making America great again. There is no reason whatsoever for American blood, taxpayers’ money, and more issuance of US debt in order to enrich the coffers of the military/security complex and to expand the frontier of Greater Israel. Trump should come to the realization that Israel is of no value to America.  Israel is a deadweight burden around our necks, and the unconditional American support for Israel’s wars and genocide of the Palestinians has cost America’s reputation hugely. If America ever had a moral luster, it no longer does.

Iran and Russia do not threaten the US. The Middle East is full of problems for Iran, whose government doesn’t need problems with the US.  Ukraine is Russia’s problem, not ours.  Washington is responsible for the conflict. Trump should apologize and remove us from the conflict.

The minute Trump stops sending money and weapons to Ukraine and Israel, peace will descend on the world. 

Trump should return to his original position that NATO is of no value to America. If NATO did not exist, Russia and Europe would be engaged in mutually beneficial economic ventures. These ventures would create financing and business opportunities also for Americans. All would prosper. It is Washington’s pursuit of hegemony–the control over others–that is suppressing economic activity worldwide and  eroding the living standard of all Americans except the top one percent. MAGA America has no interest in the agendas of special interest lobby group policies that benefit only a tiny percentage of people who are already so rich that they can’t possibly spend their huge amount of income and wealth.

The problems of the world originate in Washington and they are institutionalized in the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, Big Pharma and its control over high cost and ineffective American medicine that sacrifices Americans’ health and the integrity of doctors to Big Pharma’s profits. These are the real threats to America that if America is again to be great, these threats, not Russia and Iran, must be destroyed and eliminated.

If the Trump regime can reestablish the respect for a rule of law by indicting and prosecuting DOJ, FBI, and other officials for their criminal behavior, and if Trump can disengage the US/Israeli war machine, he will have saved the world from nuclear war and re-established the United States as the principal nation to whom the world looks for leadership.

My concern is that Trump will love the war role. As Winston Churchill believed, there is nothing more exciting than being a war leader, especially if you imagine prospects of winning. Trump is extremely susceptible to getting into war based on advice that Putin has no red lines because Putin is too  fearful of conflict. With Iran’s isolation from the destruction of Syria and a reformist government that wants to be free of religious restrictions and to make money in the West, Trump is being advised it is time to bring Iran down. See here.

When the Ruling Elite have you blocked elsewhere, their agenda becomes your only choice. Has Trump fought so hard only for the sake of being used by the well-institutionalized American Establishment?

The third thing Trump should immediately do is to shut down the US biowarfare labs Washington is operating all over the world. These labs are trying to create deadly pathogens that are highly contagious. The labs are even attempting to target the pathogens at specific ethnicities, collecting, for example, Russian DNA in the hopes of finding some material unique to Russians to which to attach the pathogen.  These American labs are all illegal. Washington tries to avoid responsibility by locating its biowarfare labs in other countries.  Trump should put an immediate halt to the activity and prosecute those responsible, including the US Congress if Congress authorized this illegal activity.

Those who profit from this evil activity claim that we have to do it because our enemies do it, but they never provide any documentation for their claim. Regardless, as the Covid experience proves, when a pathogen is released it goes everywhere. To use one as a weapon results in the same self-destruction as nuclear war.

So much of science is committed to weapons. Science needs to be turned back to improving health and the human condition.

If Trump can deal with the real challenges that we face instead of being led off to fake challenges serving special interests, he will go down as the greatest American president in history.

The post What Trump Should Do appeared first on LewRockwell.

So there I was, making a loaf of my world-famous jalapeño cheddar bread, when an unusual thought occurred to me. Well, unusual for some folks, but not really for me, per se.

Here’s what I was thinking: At 115 feet long and weighing 100 tons, how did Argentinosaurus not crush itself under its own weight, especially with pneumatised (hollow) bones? More importantly, how did a creature that big get away from predators? Run? Swim? Jump? It’s fossils aren’t connected to particularly wet areas, so it wasn’t a floater, like a bored college student at the pool on spring break. Besides, to maintain that mass, it had to eat more or less constantly.

“Wow,” you say, “he thought all that while making bread?” Well, yeah, kneading is a long, tedious process that doesn’t require much brain power.

Then another unusual thought occurred to me, and this time it was unusual even for me.

Here’s what I was thinking: Suppose 100 million years ago, the Earth was smaller and thus gravity was greatly reduced, thus huge land animals didn’t weigh then what they would now? Suppose the continents don’t “float” like slag on a molten sea, but rather are ripped apart by an expanding planet?

If you’re starting to see the connection with making bread, give yourself a gold star, and then consult a therapist.

Here’s what started it all: I was reading this article about how Earth’s interior is all lumpy and bubbly, kind of like those old lava lamps that hippie chicks always had on a table in the corner next to the incense burner and patchouli oil.

I’ve also been monitoring the earthquake swarm in Ethiopia, along the Great Rift where the Horn of Africa is tearing away from the continent. This, of course, is tangential to Earth’s weakening magnetic field and impending pole flip, allowing greatly increased amounts of cosmic radiation through, and allowing the solar “wind” to strip away the ozone layer (not CFCs).

Which brings me back to the bread.

When I first finish the dough, it’s a tight ball about the size of a softball. After an hour or so, it’s a soft mushy blob twice its original size. It’s not a perfect metaphor, because the bread isn’t adding mass, just blowing up like a balloon.

With the Earth, however, that flood of cosmic radiation lets tons of protons and electrons and neutrinos plow into the ground. The neutrinos mostly pass right through at relativistic speeds, but some strike random atoms and convert from energy into matter. All of this is adding mass to the Earth, albeit a miniscule amount relative to a human lifetime, but over (cue Carl Sagan) millions and millions of years, it adds up.

Suppose, I mused, the continents don’t drift, but are rather pulled apart by a swelling planet? Suppose it wasn’t an asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, but increasing gravity crushing them? Suppose those blobs and bubbles the scientidiots have “just discovered,” despite decades of mapping the planet’s interior with sound waves, are new structures indicating that the weakening magnetic field is allowing in more radiation, which is increasing the matter that makes up the planet?

And why does the smell of yeast always make me crave a high-quality brewed beverage?

Oh sure, there’s a constant rain of cosmic dust falling on us all the time. About 80% of the dust in your house is your own skin flakes, but some amount of it is star ashes. Stuff falling on the surface wouldn’t cause the tectonic plates to separate, though. That would have to be new material deep inside causing the planet to swell, similar to the way yeast farts cause dough to swell.

Is there any other indication that the Earth is swelling? Well…

Imagine a bowling ball sliding down the alley doing its back or side spin. As the ball goes along it swells, adding weight and girth. What happens to the spin? Well, it slows down, right? it’s all laws of physics type stuff; trust me it’s true.

Well, guess what? The Earth’s rotation is slowing by 1.7 milliseconds a century, just like our bowling ball. It’s happening on Venus too, though Mars is spinning faster. There’s obviously other factors involved, but our situation here on Earth lines up with other observed phenomena that indicate a swelling planet.

Now I don’t claim to have special insight here, but the pieces seem to line up in a way that makes sense and views the planet as a holistic system, rather than isolated events. Besides, I don’t trust scientidiots. Their heads are buried so deep in their navels all they see is lint.

Taking just one of the scientidiot gospels about plate tectonics, if the Earth isn’t swelling, what would cause the plates to move in the first place? If you blow up a balloon and cover it in plaster, the plaster doesn’t suddenly start shifting around. But if you add more air, cracks form and the pieces start separating, right?

If a bunch of enormous animals roamed the Earth millions of years ago, then suddenly (geologically speaking) all died out and the biggest thing we have now is an elephant, it seems increasing gravity could have a lot to do with that.

Just sayin’.

Read the Whole Article

The post Of Bread and Planets appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: President Trump has openly voiced his interest in having the US government take control of the Panama Canal.

He has even suggested that he wouldn’t rule out using military force to make it happen.

What is going on here?

Doug Casey: Panama, like most countries, is an artificial construct; it’s not part of the cosmic firmament. It came into being when it seceded from Colombia in 1903, midwifed by US intervention. That was a “good” secession, unlike that of the Donbas from the Ukraine in 2014 or the South from the Union in 1861, which everyone knows were “bad” secessions.

The US then bought the Zone (5 miles on either side of the proposed canal) from Panama for $10 million, which was 500,000 ounces of gold. That impresses me as a fair price, considering it was an undeveloped fever-ridden jungle at the time and that gold is worth nearly $1.5 billion today. Another $40 million (2,000,000 ounces) was paid to buy out the previous French developer. In those days the US still—sometimes—dealt with a measure of honor and propriety. Then, another $350 million (17.5 million ounces) was spent to build the canal itself.

It makes sense to think in terms of gold since that was money then. It was the largest US investment in history up to that time. Be that as it may, creating Panama enabled the US to build the canal—to the great advantage of all concerned.

Anyway, the canal now supposedly yields $3 billion (+/- 1,000,000 ounces) of profit on about $5 billion of gross receipts per year. It’s not a giant money machine in today’s context.

Panama has been de facto US territory and the Canal Zone de jure US territory, fair and square, from the get-go. Until Jimmy Carter “sold” the Zone to Panama in 1977 (for a token $1) because he felt it was the right thing to do. I disagree, but everybody’s got an opinion. Since then, the Panamanians have run the canal competently and greatly improved it.

Perhaps we should just forget about the legalisms. Central America has been under the thumb of the US since at least the days of William Walker, who nearly succeeded in singlehandedly conquering most of the region in the 1850’s. USMC Gen. Smedley Butler spent the best part of his career acting as an enforcer when Central American cuadillos got uppity. And, most recently, the US invaded Panama in 1989 to depose long-time CIA stooge Manuel Noriega, killing several thousand Panamanians as collateral damage.

One annoying element of the current kerfuffle is the way Trump keeps saying the Panamanians are “ripping off” the US. I’m unsure how he’s jumped to that conclusion since, thanks to the Jones Act, almost zero US-flagged ships exist to “rip off.” All ships pay the same prices for passage, regardless of nationality, except for US Naval vessels, which pay nothing. Apart from that, Canal fees have risen much less than inflation since Panama took over.

The big question here is to what degree one nation-state can repossess or conquer real estate that may belong to another. Revanchism has been a consistent casus belli throughout history. The Argentines with the Falklands. The Moslems and the Jews with Palestine. The Suez Crisis in 1956 when Egypt took that Canal away from the UK and France.

Should Mexico try to repossess the American Southwest, which the Americans conquered in 1848? Should France try to repossess the Louisiana Purchase because they think it was sold too cheaply? Should Russia take back Alaska for the same reason?

Does the nationality of an asset like the canal make any difference? Or is it important that it’s operated competently and peaceably? It was weak and stupid of Carter to have given the Zone to Panama. But it’s dishonorable and stupid of Trump to threaten a theft.

International Man: Trump has also taken significant steps toward Greenland, a strategically important Arctic territory.

Why is Trump so focused on Greenland?

Doug Casey: Governments love to use the word “strategic.” It’s a magic word. Everything is strategic when they want something.

The island is quite an anomaly, bigger than Alaska and California combined, but with only 47,000 people, 90% of whom are “real” natives. I understand there’s something of a race problem, though, despite the fact the natives are a large majority. The “real” natives apparently have an animus against those of European descent, even if they were born in Greenland. And even though it costs Copenhagen about $10,000 per person per year to maintain the place. It would appear Greenland is a $500 million annual drain on the Danish treasury.

Does Greenland have mineral wealth? Of course. But so does Alaska, with a vastly better climate, vastly more development, 500,000 people, and a cornucopia of all types of minerals. Fun fact: Mineral production is greatly overrated as a source of wealth.

As for “strategic” things, during the Afghanistan war, strategic thinkers thought “we” should take it over because someone said it had $3 trillion of minerals. Similar numbers are pulled out of thin air for Greenland, but they’re meaningless for a dozen different reasons. The theoretical value of minerals in the ground is meaningless. What counts is the cost and possible profitability—or not—of recovering them.

One thing they’re not considering is who now owns Greenland. It’s not the Danish government. My understanding is that the island is owned in common by the natives—not just the vast icefields but even the land under everyone’s house. It’s a very tribal and communal society. Washington is not likely to respect that.

Greenland should declare independence. This might incentivize the natives to deploy their asset in the most economic way. Perhaps becoming an Arctic version of the Caymans or Singapore, buttressed by some theoretically valuable real estate. Becoming part of the US would most likely turn them into welfare recipients, a colder version of Puerto Rico—a lose-lose for both parties.

International Man: Trump has also proposed making Canada the 51st state, even going as far as threatening to use “economic force” to achieve this.

What’s your take on this?

Doug Casey: The Donald has a quirky sense of humor, something I’ve always liked about him. Maybe he’s just letting loose his comic instincts. However, jesting about an Anschluss with other people’s property isn’t a clever negotiating technique. In today’s world, it’s very dangerous. Could it be grounds for removal under the 25th Amendment?

This calls to mind what Thucydides said in his tome on the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians decided to teach the island of Milos a lesson for not actively supporting them against the Spartans. They invaded and destroyed the city, justifying it by saying: “The powerful do what they wish, and the weak suffer what they must.” It’s not a good look or a good model for the US.

But would Canada be better off if it merged with the US?

The cultures of Canada and the US are very similar. The big difference lies in the nature of their governments. Both are poorly run, bankrupt, and far from their founding principles.

That said, it’s arguable Canada would gain tremendously. The country has a per capita GDP of only 2/3rds that of the US, and it’s much more highly taxed and regulated. Merging them would only create an even more dysfunctional and “diverse” US.

The best solution for Canada is to split up, starting with Quebec. It’s not just that the province is culturally French and alien to the rest of the country; it has long been an economic drain. In fact, all the provinces would do better, becoming independent countries. Alberta has made noises in that direction for years. Newfoundland only joined Canada in 1949 to become a large net welfare recipient and the butt of Newfie jokes. They climbed aboard a sinking ship when they should have manned a lifeboat.

The real problem is that Canada is much more left-leaning than the US. If, heaven forbid, Trump somehow merged the two countries, it would only guarantee that leftists would control the US forever after. It would be a disaster for the US.

International Man: The idea of merging the US, Canada, and Mexico was once dismissed as a nefarious globalist scheme to centralize power, erode US sovereignty, and pave the way for a global government.

Trump has rebranded this concept, and many who once opposed it are now cheering it on.

Is globalism wrapped in a MAGA package still globalism?

Doug Casey: Apart from the fact that the world would be better off with many more microstates, not just a few megastates (or MAGAstates), it’s further proof that Trump has no philosophical core, and the US government is “on tilt.” That’s said of an incompetent, out-of-control gambler who keeps doubling his bets in the hope of somehow breaking even. The US is irredeemably bankrupt, controlled by an entrenched and deeply corrupt Deep State which operates for its own benefit, not the country as a whole.

I’m afraid the US is like a star about to go supernova, in collapse after burning its fuel. Or a dinosaur thrashing around in its death throes. It’s become a bankrupt multicultural domestic empire. Contrary to what Trump seems to think, it can’t solve its problems by expanding and taking over more territory.

That will only create more chaos.

International Man: What are the overall investment implications of Trump’s geopolitical strategy?

Doug Casey: We’re in for tough times. But, as always, I like to look at the bright side… namely that Harris and the Jacobins aren’t returning to office next week. On the dark side, Trump is starting to prove himself a megalomaniac. A bull in a China shop. A loose cannon. But, going back to the bright side, maybe this will have the effect of delegitimizing the US government, which is rotten to its core.

The average American has forgotten that his real enemy aren’t some motley foreigners on the other side of the globe—it’s his own government.

If Trump breaks some Deep State rice bowls, that’s great. I wish him, via Elon and Vivek, great success. Although success is a longshot bet. But what if Trump goes megalomaniacally wild and creates international chaos—in addition to what he may do in the Middle East or the Ukraine?

Washing away rotten foundations is both good and necessary. The problem is that a sound replacement foundation doesn’t exist on which to rebuild things because the basics of American society have been washed away as well.

I think we’re looking at potential chaos over the next four years, and then, when the Republicans are kicked out of office, it will get even worse. Truly rabid Democrats will take power as “our democracy” begs for a new father figure or Big Brother to kiss the situation and make it better.

So, as Lenin said, “What is to be done?”

With grossly overpriced stock, bond, and real estate markets, and a fiat currency heading towards its intrinsic value, it makes sense to own gold, silver, other underpriced commodities, and, of course, some speculations in the companies that produce them.

Reprinted with permission from International Man,

The post Trump’s Geopolitical Strategy (or Lack Thereof) in Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal appeared first on LewRockwell.

Possibly one of the most inane phrases ever uttered about modern governments is Oliver Wendell Holmes’s oft-quoted phrase stating that “taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

This reflected the naïve view, often pushed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, of the so-called “social contract.” According to this idea, we pay taxes, and in return the state provides order, protection, and all the blessings of civilization.

Presumably included among all those taxpayer-funded civilizational “services” provided by governments one can find “fire suppression.” But, you wouldn’t know it from watching tens of thousands of residents flee their homes in southern California and Los Angeles County as fires rage. As of Wednesday at midday, five different fires in southern California are still zero-percent contained. Nor is this some hard-to-reach rural area with few roads and little infrastructure. These fires are right in the middle of suburban cities and towns. Yet, it is all apparently too much for lavishly-funded government agencies to handle.

Indeed, government authorities in Los Angeles County and California had neglected infrastructure to the point that it became useless in many areas in terms of battling the blazes. In the early hours of the Palisades fire, firefighters found themselves hamstrung by a lack of water from fire hydrants. In spite of years of warning about the growing threat of fires in the region, California bureaucrats couldn’t be bothered with upgrading the water system to ensure reliable water supply and pressure in case of a major fire.

Since 2022, California firefighters have been bragging that they’ve been sending fire suppression equipement to Ukraine. This wasn’t paid for by firefighters, of course. It was funded by the taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the mayor of the City of Los Angeles—who is paid more than $300,000 per year—is on a taxpayer-funded trip to Ghana to attend the inauguration of the new president of that west African country. What possible benefit this could bring to ordinary people in Los Angeles remains a mystery, but residents are certainly paying for what is essentially a vacation for the mayor.

Before she left for her vacation, however, the mayor supported large budget cuts to fire suppression services, as well as to other basic services like sanitation and public works. This was necessitated by the city’s budget crisis stemming from years of waste, mismanagement, and legal settlements. In 2024, the city owes $47 million to residents who have sustained injuries from the city’s crumbling infrastructure and police incompetence.

Is all this failing infrastructure a result of cuts to taxes in the city? Of course not. Taxes in Los Angeles are among the highest in the nation. And, all of that is on top of California’s debilitating income taxes which include the highest progressive state income taxes. California has the highest tax burden in the nation.

Moreover, it’s hard to hire sufficient fire suppression workers when unionized firefighters earn outrageously inflated government salaries. As The Daily Mail reported in 2024, the LA fire captain Jason Getchius earned $823,000 in 2023. In California is it not unusual to find government employees earning mid-six-figures by milking the government overtime system.

The police are notorious for doing this as well. Naturally, these enormous salaries for police don’t translate into low crime rates.

The woman in charge of water and public works in Los Angeles, Janisse Quinones, makes at least $750,000. Like most government officials, her salary does not correlate with her competence.

This is the real reason we pay taxes: to keep the ruling class (high ranking officials) and the larger parasite class (government employees and government contractors) living lifestyles of relative opulence and ease while private sector workers toil to produce all the real wealth. If it seems worse in California it’s because the grift is at a far more advanced stage there. For example, government services like fire suppression and infrastructure are cut in order to fund lavish pensions for state employees. This is true in many states, but it’s especially bad in California.

Dry fire hydrants. Millionaire firemen. High crime. Crumbling infrastructure. Is this that “civilization” that Oliver Wendell Holmes was talking about? Possibly. Contra the clueless Holmes, however, taxes are definitely not the price we pay for civilization. If anything, taxes destroy civilization by funneling resources to extractive state organs which work primarily to enrich themselves and the ruling oligarchy.

And why should ordinary people expect any real services in exchange for all those enormous taxes they pay, year after year? They shouldn’t. The state looks out for the state and its closest friends. It doesn’t look out for the people who pay the bills, except on occasion and by accident in pursuit of some good public relations. Instead, state organizations like the City of Los Angeles will spend endless hours and mountains of resources on rewarding politically connected interest groups and on endless meetings about micro-aggressions and diversity hires and on censoring critics. Fighting fires? That’s a mere afterthought.

The post The LA Fires: The ‘Social Contract’ Is Nonsense, and No One Is Coming to Save You appeared first on LewRockwell.