Back when I was a young child my grandfather enjoyed watching professional wrestling on his old black-and-white television, so I occasionally did the same.

In those distant days, television wrestling possessed almost no money nor prestige and was barely even considered a real sport, probably tied with roller derby as occupying the bottommost-tier of audience viewership. Wrestling matches were only carried on one of the lowest-rated local television stations, unaffiliated with any network, whose managers desperately sought out anything they could find to fill their available broadcast hours.

The notion that wrestling might someday become a multi-billion-dollar national business enterprise would have seemed totally outlandish and ridiculous. Although a 1975 Hollywood science fiction film called Rollerball envisioned a future America in which a lethal version of roller derby had become the #1 sport, no one ever suggested anything similar for wrestling.

Although I’ve never watched a single wrestling match since the black-and-white shows of my childhood and those memories have faded, I think that they may have often featured tag-team contests, in which pairs of wrestlers faced off against each other.

If so, then our national headlines are now proclaiming a heavyweight wrestling match to determine the future of American higher education and perhaps our entire society as well. President Donald Trump is facing off against Harvard University in the greatest political bout of this young century, with each of those primary contenders backed by their chosen seconds.

Trump is a noted author, with more than twenty published volumes to his name, many of them high-profile bestsellers on business strategy, politics, and negotiation. But I’m not entirely convinced that he’s ever actually read a single book cover-to-cover in his entire life, even including any of his own, and if he did, I suspect that the last one may have been decades ago, perhaps filled with many colorful pictures.

Meanwhile, his main opponent in that match is America’s oldest university, now approaching its 390th year of existence, long ranked as the world’s wealthiest and most prestigious institution of higher education.

Trump’s loyal team-mate is his Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the billionaire wrestling-lady, while Harvard is backed by Columbia University, still smarting from the brutal beat-down it recently received at the hands of the Trump-McMahon team before Harvard had entered the lists.

Although wealthy and very prestigious, Columbia still probably ranks a bit below the longstanding Harvard-Yale-Princeton triumvirate. Therefore the threatened loss of $400 million in annual federal funding a few weeks ago brought the university to its knees, forcing its administration to surrender on all the main points demanded.

Teams of federal agents were allowed to raid student housing and drag off any non-citizens suspected of criticizing Israel, the administration agreed to create a special unit of 30 campus security officers tasked with suppressing any public displays of anti-Zionism, and its prestigious Middle Eastern Studies program was placed in “academic receivership,” presumably intended to ensure that it became entirely pro-Israel in its teachings.

All these concessions were made by Acting President Katrina Armstrong, who afterwards resigned due to that horrific pressure she had endured, becoming the second president of Columbia to do so in just the last eight months.

So based upon this painful recent history, we are clearly seeing the sort of grudge match that has become wildly popular in pro-wrestling, with Columbia eager for its share of revenge now that it has mighty Harvard on its side.

In pro-wrestling as in other spectator sports, the onlookers can side with one of the champions or the other, or else merely enjoy the battle without taking sides.

Given Trump’s ignorance and the stupidity of his policies, most recently demonstrated by his Looney Tunes tariff proposals, I certainly couldn’t see myself cheering for him. But instead of remaining neutral, I’ve found myself entirely in Harvard’s corner.

My position might seem a bit strange given the harsh criticism that I’ve leveled at my alma mater over the years, even on some of the very matters that the Trump Administration is fiercely attacking.

For example, as far back as late 2012, I’d published a short piece arguing that Harvard had gradually transformed itself from a great academic center of learning into an enormous hedge fund with some sort of small school or something attached off to one side.

Paying Tuition to a Giant Hedge Fund
Ron Unz • The American Conservative • December 4, 2012 • 1,300 Words

As I noted in a follow-up column a few days later, my criticism had deeply resonated in liberal journalistic circles, and during the years since then denouncing our elite universities as disguised hedge-funds has become widespread:

Late Friday afternoon, the piece was prominently featured on the Business Insider and CNBC websites, and soon redistributed on twitter by a large throng of individuals, some of them prominent journalists. MSNBC‘s Chris Hayes tweeted “very jealous I did not write this article” to his 175,000 followers, Pulitzer Prize winner Bart Gellman described it as “eye opening,” and New York Times economic policy reporter Annie Lowrey used the phrase “Harvard as a giant hedge fund plus a wee research university.”

Moreover, that particular piece had actually been published as a side-bar to my extremely long analysis of the admissions practices at Harvard and our other most elite universities, which together served as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, media, and finance. My statistics demonstrated that their admissions process had become hopelessly corrupt, and I summarized these conclusions.

In recent decades, elite college admissions policy has frequently become an ideological battlefield between liberals and conservatives, but I would argue that both these warring camps have been missing the actual reality of the situation.

Conservatives have denounced “affirmative action” policies which emphasize race over academic merit, and thereby lead to the enrollment of lesser qualified blacks and Hispanics over their more qualified white and Asian competitors; they argue that our elite institutions should be color-blind and race-neutral. Meanwhile, liberals have countered that the student body of these institutions should “look like America,” at least approximately, and that ethnic and racial diversity intrinsically provide important educational benefits, at least if all admitted students are reasonably qualified and able to do the work.

My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions. But based on the detailed evidence I have discussed above, it appears that both these ideological values have gradually been overwhelmed and replaced by the influence of corruption and ethnic favoritism, thereby selecting future American elites which are not meritocratic nor diverse, neither being drawn from our most able students nor reasonably reflecting the general American population.

The overwhelming evidence is that the system currently employed by most of our leading universities admits applicants whose ability may be unremarkable but who are beneficiaries of underhanded manipulation and favoritism. Nations which put their future national leadership in the hands of such individuals are likely to encounter enormous economic and social problems, exactly the sort of problems which our own country seems to have increasingly experienced over the last couple of decades. And unless the absurdly skewed enrollments of our elite academic institutions are corrected, the composition of these feeder institutions will ensure that such national problems only continue to grow worse as time passes.

The Myth of American Meritocracy
Ron Unz • The American Conservative • November 28, 2012 • 26,200 Words

New York Times columnist David Brooks soon ranked my piece as perhaps the best American magazine article of the year, a verdict strongly seconded by a top editor at The Economist. The Yale Political Union and the Yale Law School invited me to give a couple of public lectures on that controversial conclusion and the rest of my Meritocracy analysis. A very long list of other writers and public intellectuals commented on my article, an overwhelming majority of them quite favorably, with their discussions appearing in Forbes, The Atlantic, The Washington Monthly, Business Insider, and various other publications. These included such prominent public figures as Harvard Prof. Niall Ferguson and Fareed Zakaria.

One of my central findings had been the existence of very strong quantitative evidence that Harvard and the other Ivy League schools were practicing racial discrimination by surreptitiously maintaining Asian Quotas in their admissions policies, and this soon prompted the New York Times to organize an important symposium on that explosive topic in which I eagerly participated. My graph demonstrating the extremely suspicious convergence of Asian enrollment throughout the Ivies was very widely distributed across the Internet, including being republished by the Times, and seemed to constitute “smoking gun” proof of what had long been a widely held suspicion.

As I explained in my Times piece:

After the Justice Department closed an investigation in the early 1990s into charges that Harvard University discriminated against Asian-American applicants, Harvard’s reported enrollment of Asian-Americans began gradually declining, falling from 20.6 percent in 1993 to about 16.5 percent over most of the last decade.

This decline might seem small. But these same years brought a huge increase in America’s college-age Asian population, which roughly doubled between 1992 and 2011, while non-Hispanic white numbers remained almost unchanged. Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of Asian-Americans enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while the percentage of whites changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was actually larger than the impact of Harvard’s 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen from 27.6 percent to 15 percent.

Conservative circles took considerable interest, with Charles Murray highlighting my analysis, and a few weeks later I published a piece in National Review arguing that my findings might provide legal grounds for the Supreme Court to overturn its 1978 Bakke decision that laid the basis for decades of Affirmative Action policies:

Racial Quotas, Harvard, and the Legacy of Bakke
Have three decades of Supreme Court support for affirmative action been based on fraud?
Ron Unz • National Review • February 18, 2013 • 800 Words

Indeed, the following year a group of Asian-American plaintiffs filed their lawsuit challenging Harvard’s admissions system as discriminatory. Their case spent the next decade wending its way through federal court, then on June 29, 2023 their effort culminated in a decisive 6-to-3 Supreme Court ruling overturning Bakke after 45 years. That judicial thunderbolt largely eliminated the legal basis for affirmative action in college admissions and many other areas of American society.

Read the Whole Article

The post Trump vs. Harvard in a Political Wrestling Match appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Suppression of Christianity in Its Birthplace

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

My rewrite of the famous quote by Lord Palmerston regarding “interests” to have it reflect the reality of Israel and its powerful friends would go something like this: “I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that Israel is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual friend of the United States and of enlightened western values. By design, Israel has no eternal allies. Its interests are indeed perpetual but center on its own success at aggressively portraying itself always as the victim while also advancing its own tribal interests.” I admittedly tend to think often about the enemy we of the western Christian tradition have been nurturing at our breast for decades in a spirit of tolerance, a viper that is only setting out to corrupt and then destroy us, manifest particularly at this time of year, when the life and death of Jesus Christ ought to be rightly celebrated. Alas, in today’s Israel what is truly remarkable is the government’s open suppression of Christian identity and worship without any complaint coming from Washington or from the other nominally Christian nations of Europe.

Indeed, Christianity in the Middle East is generally dying due the pressure exerted by Israel to make Palestinian life and religious practice as difficult as possible as well as broader regional issues including Israeli and US punishment and replacement of regimes in places like Syria and Lebanon which up until recently harbored substantial Christian minorities. Christians, generally speaking, find it easier to emigrate to friendlier countries worldwide than local Muslims as they often have established family overseas to help in the process.

The marginalization of Christians in Israel, recently driven by apartheid legislation and parliamentary declaration of Israel to be a Jewish state, has been around for a long time but it is particularly bad this year for both Christmas and Easter with refusal by the Israeli authorities to permit gatherings for church services and other celebrations. Only 6,000 security “passes” were issued by the Israelis to West Bank Palestinian Christians to celebrate Palm Sunday and Easter in Jerusalem this year unlike in the past when there would be 50,000 attendees. As a result, many celebrations and the usual parades have been canceled.

Father Ibrahim Faltas OFM, the Vicar of the Custody of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, described how “Despite several high-level meetings, we haven’t been able to obtain more permits,” recalling that West Bank Christians face many restrictions on their freedom of movement during the year and wait for the Easter season to travel to Jerusalem to pray at the Holy Sites. Also, ancient churches in Gaza have been bombed and destroyed over the past year, probably deliberately, creating a sense of depression among the worshippers who are also very aware of their fellow Palestinians, many of whom are Christian, being slaughtered by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). On April 13, Palm Sunday, an early morning air strike destroyed the outpatient and laboratory wards in the Anglican church run Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza. The debris from the airstrike reached the neighboring St Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church which was preparing for the Palm Sunday celebration along with the homeless remnants of the local community residing in the church compound. The incident heightened the despair of the entire Christian community. The head of a Catholic aid agency described how “Christians are suffocating and are trapped in their own governorates (provinces) and towns unable to travel freely without harassment because they need special permits…” That is in spite of the fact that there has never been any violence or political unrest associated with the movement of the pilgrims, so it is widely regarded as little more than pure harassment by the Israeli authorities.

To be sure, Christian community and religious leaders have been aware of what exactly is going on and have protested to what would appear to be the appropriate Israeli government authorities, but generally to no avail. Their cause would be helped if majority Christian nations like the US and in Europe would speak up and put pressure on Israel for fair treatment for Christians, but they are generally silent due to their having been corrupted and intimidated by the various manifestations of the Israel Lobby active in their countries. Likewise, the media in those countries is very careful about what it prints or says about Israel or Jews as such criticism is a crime in many jurisdictions, something which is becoming increasingly the case in the United States and tied to evidence free deportations of those who object to what is occurring in Gaza.

The annual report by the Rossing Center, a Jerusalem-based organization dedicated to interfaith coexistence, documented 111 cases of harassment and violence against the Christian community in Israel and East Jerusalem in 2024. The report revealed a climate of hostility that, according to one of the study’s authors, Federica Sasso, only represents “the tip of the iceberg of a much larger phenomenon.” Of the 111 reported cases of assault, 47 were physical assaults primarily through “spitting,” a behavior that has evolved from subtle acts to openly aggressive displays. In several areas, especially in the Old City of Jerusalem, priests, nuns, friars, and monks “being easily identified are exposed to these attacks on a daily basis” with only rare intervention by the Israeli authorities.

Several years ago, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Israel, Pierbattista Pizzaballa, said that Christians have faced difficult challenges most particularly since the formation of Netanyahu’s latest far right-wing government in December 2022. According to Pizzaballa, his government has emboldened ultra-nationalist religious activists, many of whom are armed settlers, and some of whom have harassed male and female members of the clergy and vandalized religious property. Pizzaballa observed how “The frequency of these attacks, the aggressions, has become something new. These people feel they are protected …the cultural and political atmosphere can now justify, or tolerate, actions against Christians.”

A colleague, Francesco Patton, the Custodian of the Holy Land, elaborated how “We are horrified and hurt in the wake of the many incidents of violence and hatred that have taken place recently against the Catholic community in Israel.” He described the desecration of a Lutheran cemetery, the vandalizing of a Maronite prayer room, urination on holy sites, destruction of sacred images and the spraying of “death to Christians” on church property, all taking place shortly after the new Netanyahu government was installed. He also noted “the responsibility of the leaders, of those who have power,” adding that the Israeli police routinely failed to investigate such incidents after the churches reported them.

To determine if the claims of increased violence and hate crimes directed against Christians were true, on June 26th the liberal leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz sent one of its journalists dressed as a priest into downtown Jerusalem. Within five minutes, the journalist Yossi Eli “was derided and spat at, including by a child and a soldier… A bit later a man mocked [him] in Hebrew, saying, ‘Forgive me father for I have sinned.’ Then an 8-year-old spat at [him], as did [another] soldier when a group of troops passed by later.”

Given what is going on on-the-ground, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) has called for an investigation into the role that Israeli-US dual national settlers are currently playing in the recent wave of violence directed against both Christian and Muslim Palestinian towns and villages. ADC Executive Director Abed Ayoub has said that “We have strong reason to believe that American citizens are among the key perpetrators of the most recent brutal and violent attacks.” Since June 21st, armed Israeli settler mobs have been terrorizing Palestinian villages in the West Bank on a nearly daily basis. They have destroyed homes, burned vehicles, and killed at least one Palestinian. For decades US Citizens have moved to Israeli settlements, which they use as bases for regularly engaging in violence against Palestinians, all with impunity, as the Israeli police and army provide the Arabs with no protection and instead often protect the settlers. Many of these US Citizens also take advantage of American charitable and non-profit tax laws to fund illegal settlements and initiate violence against Palestinians.

In another major incident, dozens of Israeli extremists, primarily Orthodox Jews, disrupted a Christian prayer event for pilgrims near the Western Wall. The deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Aryeh King and leading Rabbi Avi Thau led the protesters. Denouncing the Christians as “missionaries” trying to convert Jews, the extremists spat at and cursed the pilgrims, many of whom were ironically normally strongly pro-Israel evangelical Christians from the US. Deputy Mayor King said that Christians should enjoy freedom of worship “only inside their churches.”

According to Protecting Holy Land Christians, an organization established by Christian groups to raise awareness of threats their religion, there have been other accounts of how Christians have been subjected to increasing persecution. A recent report details how Palestinians have been targeted by what it calls settler-colonialism, which is a series of measures intended to destroy their communities and drive them from their land. It identifies seven policies that Israel uses against Palestinians throughout the whole of Mandatory Palestine (1948 Palestine, Gaza, the West Bank including East Jerusalem) and also to punish those in exile: “denial of residency; land confiscation and denial of use; discriminatory planning; denial of access to natural resources and services; imposition of a permit regime; fragmentation, segregation and isolation; denial of reparations; and suppression of resistance.” The report concludes “Whether these policies are considered separately or taken together, they amount to forced population transfer, a grave breach of international humanitarian law (IHL).”

Recently, these essentially genocidal measures have included the outright theft of their historic buildings and land by the government, and denial of other rights, including the increasing refusal to permit gatherings of the faithful at the existing churches on major holidays like Christmas and Easter. There have also been many physical attacks on individual Christians carried out by extremist Jews as well as desecration of Christian religious sites and destruction or defacement of Christian relics and statuary. A June 2023 conference held in Jerusalem to address the issue of increased violence against Christians attracted a number of diplomats, scholars and representatives of religious groups, but it was boycotted by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The US Embassy also did not send a representative or observer, indicating clearly that it was not interested in the plight of Christians in Israel, or rather that it did not even want to admit that there was a problem.

Interestingly enough, Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, a right wing extremist and a leader of the settler movement, is about to arrive in Washington and will be receiving red carpet treatment from the usual suspects. He has been open about his desire to remove all Palestinians, Christian and Muslim alike, from historic Palestine and was behind legislation making it perfectly legal and without consequence for any soldier or policeman, or armed settler, to kill a Palestinian. The trip will include stops in Florida and Washington, DC, where he’s slated to meet with US officials, conservative influencers, and Jewish community leaders. The most high-profile meeting on his schedule is with Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Ben Gvir, who runs Israel’s prison system, has advocated a straightforward solution for dealing with his country’s unwanted detainees. “It is unfortunate that I have had to deal in recent days with whether Palestinian prisoners should receive fruit baskets,” he said last year. “They should be killed with a shot to the head.” Self described Zionist Joe Biden had actually blocked his entry into the US as “too extremist” but as we have seen Donald Trump is not so fastidious.

So there you have it. The Netanyahu Israeli government is not very interested in human rights for anyone who is not a Conservative or Orthodox Jew. It is, in fact, essentially hostile to all Palestinians and foreigners, be they Muslim, Christian or even irreligious. They regularly denigrate such people as what Germans in the 1930s would have referred to as “untermenschen” meaning subhumans, a word then used to describe Jews, ironically enough. That the United States ignores all of Israel’s war crimes and human rights violations is disgraceful, but par for the course as American Jews who are advocates for Israel have corrupted and taken firm control of the political process. And do not think for a second that Israel’s leaders give one damn about the United States and its people, a majority of whom are at least nominally Christian. Recall for a moment how former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon referred to Americans in a discussion with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: “Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” And more recently Netanyahu said “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.” That is what they really think of us.

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post The Suppression of Christianity in Its Birthplace appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Deportation Issue Is: Do You Prefer White Liberal States to Hispanic States?

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

Like Trump’s on-off-on tariffs, the US Supreme Courts rulings are off-on-maybe-we will see.

Last week the Court overruled Boasberg and said that Trump had the authority to deport illegal aliens. But by the time last Saturday arrived, the Court had changed its mind and “paused” the deportation of illegal entrants. The Court now has decided that those who had entered the US illegally, thus committing a crime, had the right to challenge their deportation in US courts.

Here is the Supreme Court’s ruling: “The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court.” Note the Court’s use of the word “putative.” The Court is saying that it is uncertain that the illegals are illegals. Once you have walked in, you are an American, right? That seems to be the Democrats’ position. What will the Court’s position be?

Amazing, isn’t it. Millions of immigrant-invaders can enter America illegally, but they cannot be deported until they have had their day in court. To be clear, what the US Supreme Court has ruled is that there will be no further deportations. The 16 or 30 million, or whatever the figure, illegal entrants are here to stay.

The deportation hearings, which will be shopped to Democrat district and appeal courts, will take years and will not be resolved until Trump’s term is over.

For decades American conservatives have thought that the most important reason to have a Republican president is Supreme Court Appointments, but now we see it matters not to have a Republican majority on the Supreme Court. The Court, whether Republican or Democrat, has no comprehension of American survival. The courts are preoccupied with grabbing power from the executive.

Just as the US took Texas, Colorado, California and the SouthWest from Mexico, the hispanics are taking it back with the aid of the Democrat Party and the US Supreme Court. And, of course, with the acquiesce of Republicans who are incapable of fighting.

The question is: how much do we really care? Would you prefer to have white liberal Colorado, California, Arizona or Hispanic Colorado, California, and Arizona. I would prefer the Hispanics. They are more decent people than white liberals, and, unlike white liberals, they do not hate America.

Perhaps the ignorant insouciance of the American courts will have the unintended result of replacing anti-American blue states with Hispanic states. It would be a huge improvement in the quality of America.

The post The Deportation Issue Is: Do You Prefer White Liberal States to Hispanic States? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Great Consternation

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

A great consternation boils and bubbles across the land as the sinister forces of Jacobin lawfare keep up their legalistic battery against the nation. You better believe that the country will not stand for much more of this lunatic judicial coup aimed at wrecking the authority of law itself, and with that, any chance for sane management of our affairs.

On Saturday, the activist org Indivisible, sponsored by Linked-In billionaire Reid Hoffman and dark money “pass through” funder the Tides Foundation (Bill Gates and others), sent its “protest” troops into the streets to pretend that there is public support for national suicide. It was a pitiful showing, after all. There are only so many mind-fucked Boomers out there who can be marshaled to militate for the psychopathocracy behind these monied actors.

Easter weekend looked like a turning point in this struggle for sanity over the public interest. On Saturday night, the SCOTUS shot its wad staying the deportation of Venezuelan gang-bangers rounded-up by ICE in Texas. Do you suppose that means the executive branch is powerless now to remove anyone who entered the USA illegally? It’s alleged that the illegal aliens have a right to some due process beyond their deportation orders — which themselves entail sufficient due process to execute their removal, since entering the country illegally is an actionable violation.

Of course, millions of illegal immigrants ditched their own identity documents before crossing into the USA, so there is no way of even establishing who they actually are, were they to appear in an American court for any proposed due process sorting-out. The identity erasure was carried out deliberately to confound the law, and was part of the concerted efforts of NGOs working with the “Joe Biden” regime to stuff illegals into the country as fast as possible with no vetting whatsoever.

It was, you understand, an elaborately engineered operation, down to the CPB One cell phone app created by the US Department of Homeland Security itself under Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to mass produce phony asylum cases that streamlined illegal entry for millions. This was complemented by the DHS program of “humanitarian parole and travel authorization” to enter the US on commercial flights directly from foreign countries, bypassing customs interviews.

The motivation for all that was understood by anyone with a functional brain: to assemble a new voter cohort, using motor-voter procedures and mail-in ballots to guarantee Democratic Party election victories in key districts for all time to come. It couldn’t have been more cynically corrupt, as is the new campaign to prevent these millions of new fake voters from being deported back to where they came from.

All of this points to the question: what can be done about such an arrant insult to the citizens of our country? The consternation arises from the failure of federal appeals courts, and now even the SCOTUS, to end the coup. What’s needed is a raft of major DOJ prosecutions for the serious crimes around the vast panoply of lawfare operations going back to 2016. I believe they are coming and that the reason you hear nothing lately out of the DOJ and the FBI is because the cases are under construction and details about them have not been leaked.

A good place to start would be a case for mass murder, battery, obstruction of justice, and lying to Congress against the people responsible for the Covid-19 caper.

You might have noticed last week — though The New York Times and the cable news networks didn’t report it — that the White House issued a major document titled Lab Leak; the True Origins of Covid 19. The doc succinctly outlines the case that Anthony Fauci of NIAID and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina presided over the design of the Covid-19 virus and outsourced its production, with the help of Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, to the Wuhan Virology Institute lab. Include the CEOs or Pfizer and Moderna, Francis Collins, Rochelle Walensky, and their chief deputies at CDC, and Stephen Hahn, Janet Woodcock, and Robert Califf all serially chiefs of the FDA from 2020 to 2024, for enabling the phony and harmful Covid Vaccine program. Indict them all. Let a jury decide if Dr. Fauci’s preemptive pardon was legitimate. The others enjoy no pardon protection.

Bring cases against, John Brennan, James Comey, and a long list of DOJ / FBI officials for the crimes around RussiaGate. Include Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg for his activities running the FISA court during the period. Indict them under federal statute 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Throw in sedition and possibly treason, since the UK’s MI6 agency was a party to the seditious frauds involved.

Indict Alejandro Mayorkas and his deputies, and the White House aides manipulating “Joe Biden,” for engineering the mass entry of illegal immigrants between January 2021 and 2025.

Bring cases against Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership for instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol building, as well as the DNC / RNC pipe bomb hoax.

Investigate the previously ignored incidents of voter fraud in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in the 2020 election.

Indict Joe Biden and his family for bribery and treason for their money laundering activities in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere during Biden’s years as vice-president and the period when he was out-of-office, 2017 to 2021 (and enjoyed no immunity).

Indict Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco for organizing the malicious prosecutions of Donald Trump in 2024 in Georgia, Florida, the District of Columbia, and New York City. And bring a case against Eisen and his assistants for orchestrating the current judicial coup outlined above.

Start making this happen, Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, and you will begin to shatter the giant glass cloche of cognitive dissonance that holds the minds of half the country hostage to a long-running Jacobin conspiracy aimed at wrecking the country. You will at least witness a startling shift in what the people pay attention to. Call it retribution if you like. It represents payback for a host of crimes committed against the American people by government officials who warred against them. It is well-deserved.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post The Great Consternation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Pope Francis Has Died Aged 88

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

VATICAN CITY –– Pope Francis has died today, aged 88.

The Holy See Press Office announced the news, writing:

A short while ago, His Eminence Cardinal Farrell announced with sorrow the death of Pope Francis with these words:

“Dear brothers and sisters, it is with deep sorrow that I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis.

At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the Father’s house. His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and His Church.

He taught us to live the values of the Gospel with fidelity, courage, and universal love, especially toward the poorest and most marginalized.

With immense gratitude for his example as a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, we commend the soul of Pope Francis to the infinite merciful love of the Triune God.”

Pope Francis’s health had been steadily declining in recent months. He had suffered persistent breathing problems through the winter and was admitted to Rome’s Gemelli hospital on February 14 for bronchitis but was then diagnosed with double pneumonia in what was first described as a “complex” then a “critical” medical scenario. He suffered a number of respiratory crises and failures and presented with symptoms of “mild” kidney failure during his hospitalization. Discharged back to the Vatican after 38-days, Francis began a 2-month convalescence as his doctors revealed he nearly lost his life twice in the spring hospitalization.

He was last in public on Easter Sunday to give the Urbi et Orbi blessing, but looked notably weak, being barely able to raise his arms and with a particularly strained voice.

The Argentinian prelate had led the Catholic Church as Pope since March 13, 2013. He emerged to the world as a surprise successor to Benedict XVI, following the German Pope’s shock resignation in February 2013.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained on December 13, 1969 and was raised to become Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires in May 1992, before assuming control of the see in 1998. Created cardinal by Pope John Paul II in February 2001, he served as the vice-president and then president of the episcopal conference of Argentina from 2002 – 2011.

In the papal conclave following Benedict XVI’s resignation, Cardinal Bergoglio was elected to the Papal throne on March 13, 2013, at the age of 76.

Styled as the “pope of confusion” by commentators, his reign was marked by a rapid diversion from Catholic teaching on numerous issues, with his pronouncements and writings leading to widespread confusion amongst Catholics on topics such as LGBT issues, divorce and “re-marriage,” nature of the priesthood, role of the laity in ecclesial governance, adherence to Tradition, and the permissibility of the traditional Latin Mass.

Pope Francis: A bishop from ‘the ends of the earth’

Announced as the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church on March 13, 2013, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected on just the second day of the conclave. Many have argued that his election was a result of a longstanding and coordinated plan by the secretive St. Gallen group or mafia. (More details on his election are provided further below in this obituary).

Citing concern for the poor as his reason, Bergoglio chose the new papal name of Francis in imitation of St. Francis of Assisi. Addressing the crowds in St. Peter’s Square on the evening of his ascent to the throne, Francis avoided using the term “Pope,” presenting himself instead as “bishop” of Rome. “You know that it was the duty of the Conclave to give Rome a Bishop. It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to get one… but here we are… I thank you for your welcome. The diocesan community of Rome now has its Bishop.”

His appearance on the balcony of St. Peter’s was notable for its departure from tradition: gone were the Pope’s red shoes which symbolized martyrdom; gone were the Papal pectoral cross and ring, with Bergoglio choosing his own instead; gone also was the traditional red mozzetta.

He also dispensed with the usual order of a papal blessing, asking the assembled crowd to pray for him, before imparting a blessing.

The evening was a revelatory one, with many commentators already remarking on the new Pope’s disregard for customs.

He created over 140 cardinals in nine consistories through his reign, and issued well over 3,500 documents, texts or speeches. Among this number were 4 Encyclicals: Lumen Fidei, largely written by Pope Benedict and finished by Francis; Fratelli Tutti, which expounded a form of irreligious fraternity dubbed as “blasphemous”; Laudato Si’, which advocated for “climate change” measures and formed the basis for his future ecological writings and interventions; Dilexit Nos, on the Sacred Heart.

Pope Francis also penned 74 Motu Proprios, 92 Apostolic Letters, 7 Apostolic Exhortations, 20 Apostolic Constitutions, and one Papal Bull. Francis made over 40 official papal trips outside of Italy and visited 65 countries as of September 12, 2024.

Traditional Latin Mass

One of the most notable and impactful aspects of Francis’ tumultuous pontificate is his attack on the Church’s traditional Mass, which was affected over a number of years. His July 16, 2021, motu proprio Traditionis Custodes abrogated Pope Benedict’s 2007 Summorum Pontificum, declaring that the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, or the Novus Ordo, is the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

The immediate fallout of the text saw closure of traditional Masses in various locations around the world. It was supposedly born out of a survey by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which claimed devotees of the traditional Mass fostered “disagreements,” ruptures in the Church, and the “peril of division.”

However, the implementation of the restrictions was not swift or widespread enough, prompting Francis’ perfect of the Congregation for Divine Worship (Cardinal Arthur Roche) to issues increased restrictions in December 2021, followed by yet more restrictions in February 2023. The results of the CDF’s survey were never published, and are believed never to have been seen by Roche’s dicastery implementing the restrictions.

Canonists have argued that Traditionis Custodes itself was not canonically legal, and prelates such as Cardinals Raymond Burke, Robert Sarah and Bishop Athanasius Schneider repeatedly spoke out against the papal moves. Schneider has stated that to comply with the restrictions would be a “false obedience,” Sarah decried them as “diabolical,” and Burke styled them as being a “persecution.”

By virtue of these various documents against the traditional Mass, Francis thus ordered traditional Masses out of parish churches, forbade newly ordained priests from automatically being able to say the traditional Mass, limited the number of priests already with that permission, restricted the use of the traditional sacraments, and removed diocesan bishops’ powers to exempt their priests from the papal restrictions.

In addition to this, the Pontiff repeatedly took aim at devotees of Tradition, describing them as “rigid” and highlighting this as a problem related to “clericalism.” In one such characteristic discussion, Francis argued that devotion to the traditional Mass was a “nostalgic disease” resulting in “indietrism.”

In a quasi-autobiographical book published in January 2025, Francis also accused Catholics who attend the traditional liturgy of having a “mental imbalance, emotional deviation, behavioral difficulties, a personal problem that may be exploited.”

Indeed, further restrictions on the traditional Mass had been rumored to be enacted over the summer of 2024, with Francis reportedly having the document on his desk ready to sign. But following an outpouring of public support from groups and individuals, the rumored text never emerged.

Read the Whole Article

The post Pope Francis Has Died Aged 88 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Real ID: Phony Security, Real Authoritarianism

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

Those who hoped the second Trump Administration would reject big spending, war, and restrictions on liberty continue to be disappointed. A new disappointment came when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced her department would in May begin enforcing the REAL ID law.

Passed in 2005, the REAL ID Act created federal standards for driver’s licenses. The law requires everyone applying for a driver’s license to provide the DMV with his social security number, proof of legal residence, and two proofs of his home address. The REAL ID Act allows the Homeland Security Department to mandate, as it sees fit, the including of addition items in the related government database, including “biometric” identifiers. Biometric identifiers include personal data such as retina scans, fingerprints, and DNA.

People who doubt that this database will be used to violate the rights of US citizens should ask what a present-day J. Edgar Hoover — a former FBI director who was notorious for collecting private information on politicians and other prominent individuals — would do with a database containing personal and even biometric information on American citizens. They should also consider the IRS’s history of targeting presidents’ political opponents. Americans also have the threat of violations of their rights by hackers. The government has a poor track record of protecting data of US citizens.

REAL ID’s supporters deny the law turns state driver’s licenses into national ID cards because states have no mandate to implement REAL ID. However, citizens of any state that refuses to adopt REAL ID will be unable to use their state-issued IDs for boarding an airplane or riding on a train.

Once the initial uses of REAL ID are established, the government will then require REAL ID for other activities. For instance, local transportation authorities may be offered federal funds to implement REAL ID requirements for public transportation. Several pro-Second Amendment organizations oppose REAL ID because it could be used to monitor gun owners. There is nothing in the law prohibiting a future progressive Homeland Security secretary from requiring REAL ID for a firearms purchase. Imposing a REAL ID mandate on gun ownership would further the authoritarian objective of having a database containing the name and address of, and how many and what type of firearms are owned by, every law-abiding gun owner in the country.

REAL ID also menaces health freedom. One of the few victories for liberty during the covid hysteria was the failure of “vaccine passport” schemes to be more widely imposed. These schemes attempted to forbid people from returning to their normal lives unless they proved they were “fully vaccinated” against covid.

REAL ID was marketed as a weapon in the “war on terror.” However, Thomas Massie, the most consistent and courageous defender of liberty in the House of Representatives, pointed out that 9-11 hijackers used passports from their own countries. Rep. Massie wrote, “As long as the pilot’s door is locked and no one has weapons, why do you care that someone who flies has government permission?”

Like most post-9-11 security bills, REAL ID does nothing to protect the American people’s safety. It does, though, do much to endanger their liberty. REAL ID could even be the final piece of the transformation of America into a total surveillance society where government monitors, and thus controls, our actions. Americans who understand the danger must work to get the Trump administration to reverse its position.

The post Real ID: Phony Security, Real Authoritarianism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Common Cold Now Cured. Scale Up, Branch Out

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

In the USA in 1997–2009, influenza and RSV in total killed 30,400 people per year. Such common viral infections are well worth curing as soon as possible.

Focus on the Viral Infection, Then on the Complications

Covid brought an explosion in respiratory virus research. This is explained in part by the fact that covid is caused by a respiratory virus that’s relatively potent. Most severe cases, for instance, feature destructive clotting.

Even so, covid and common colds both start with virus buildup in the respiratory system and then cause further complications, in the lungs and elsewhere. Also, covid and common colds both are more deadly to people who are elderly or have complicating conditions.

Since covid and common colds have features in common, and covid has further severe effects, covid can be taken as a generally worst case. Prevention and treatment suitable for covid should be conservatively more-than-sufficient for common colds.

From the outset, it clearly was impossible to meaningfully slow the spread of the covid-producing SARS-CoV-2 virus across whole networks of people. It was far-more practical to instead prevent covid disease development or worsening.

People prevented covid disease development by using safe, inexpensive, widely-available vitamins, supplements, and other treatments to build up immune function, lessen viral loads, and augment immune function. To build up immune function, people took vitamin D in advance in a good-enough form, in large-enough amounts, for long enough. To lessen viral loads, people didn’t wear masks and further breathed plenty of fresh air, and used nasal sprays and mouthwashes. To augment immune function, people took ionophores like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or quercetin, all of which transport zinc into cells, and in combination took enough zinc.

Overall, treatments were tailored to the disease phases, as outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Covid time course and treatment

Treatments first primarily limited virus replication, and then primarily prevented or limited inflammation and further disease. Similar approaches work well on other similar-enough diseases.

After a Texas child tested positive for measles and then died, her also-infected four younger siblings and two 4-month-old twin cousins responded well to similar safe, widely-available treatments suitable for measles. Measles depletes vitamin A, and cod liver oil served as a high-quality source. These children’s measles was in measles’s respiratory phase, and budesonide steroid inhaler was very beneficial.

Admit We Have Problems Practicing and Learning

Figure 1 is from a series of prevention and treatment guides prepared by the Independent Medical Alliance. Such leading clinical practice and teaching is being suppressed by establishment groups.

Two of IMA’s seven exceptional founding members, Paul Marik and Pierre Kory, had their board certifications revoked by the American Board of Internal Medicine. IMA senior fellow Mary Talley Bowden helped a hospitalized desperately-ill man’s wife get a court order to get him ivermectin, and tried to get ivermectin administered to him, but this was prevented and the man died. Bowden was then sued by the Texas Medical Board. The distinguished lead author of the first published early outpatient treatment protocol for covid, Peter McCullough, had his board certification revoked by ABIM. Independent clinicians’ prescriptions for generic antivirals have been going unfilled in hospitals and pharmacy chains.

Independent clinicians and customers have been working around pharmacists’ interference with medical practice and liberty by getting prescriptions filled in some independent pharmacies and in many compounding pharmacies. State legislators have made ivermectin over-the-counter with a pharmacist’s consents in Tennessee and with no exceptions in Arkansas and Idaho, and they’re considering bills in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. They’re considering banning mRNA therapies for humans in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, and Texas.

Use Basic Controls that Are Simple and Powerful

The key disputes involve two groups. One group is pharma, plus most government people, health‑payment providers, hospitals, large practices, and pharmacy chains. The other group is independent clinicians and customers, plus a few government people and pharmacists.

Pharma’s approach and independents’ approach differ greatly in safety, efficacy, and cost, as encapsulated by Figure 2.

Figure 2. Pharma approach vs. independent approach

Pharma develops branded treatments by learning from small, centralized trials—first of safety, then of efficacy. This process builds in high costs and long delays.

Independents use mechanistic understanding to apply possible treatments to both existing and new uses. They start with safety data that’s sufficient to support wide use, and that’s often far-more extensive than the data for new pharma branded treatments. They keep monitoring safety in use, and they also monitor efficacy in use. Independents’ mix of branded, generic, and other therapies is more varied. With this decentralized approach, independents discover quickly and adapt quickly, saving lives and improving health.

Aircraft carrier flight-deck crews have demonstrated high reliability by not relying on redundant operations or layers of supervision but instead keeping responsibility simple and clear, and empowering people. Clinicians face analogous real-time demands. They do well when they create for themselves a similar decentralized structure.

Vaccines and mRNA therapies appear to at minimum worsen immune responses: they reduce some crucial helpful responses, and they increase some serious harmful responses. Relying instead on less-immune-disruptive state-of-the-art preventions and treatments would very‑advisably first do no harm. In the meantime, though, autism, other historically-rare serious diseases, and turbo cancers—all of them terrible burdens on life and health—remain on the rise.

Remarkably, independents trying safe, inexpensive, widely-available treatments at small-scale on clinical cases are seeing impressive, highly-promising results on cancers. Imagine if independents could help people in case after case their whole careers, by practicing using the products they already have at hand and using more products as producers make them available.

At the end of My Cousin Vinny, Mona Lisa Vito playfully teased that succeeding in case after case would be a nightmare. We need decentralized independents to be a dream come true.

The post Common Cold Now Cured. Scale Up, Branch Out appeared first on LewRockwell.

Why Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

Mar, 22/04/2025 - 05:01

One of the most challenging things for me throughout my time in the medical field has been watching children become neurologically damaged by vaccines, and the widespread blindness of the medical profession to this issue. Unfortunately, because so much money has been spent to engineer the societal belief that vaccines do not cause autism, anyone who asserts otherwise is immediately subject to widespread ridicule, to the point it’s mostly a lost cause to convince medical professionals vaccines aren’t always safe. Sadly, in many cases, the only thing that can open their eyes is their own child being severely injured.

Since one of the central reasons the autism-vaccine link has always been dismissed is that there’s no established mechanism to explain how vaccines could cause autism, this article will focus on that question and why there has been so much resistance to understanding what is behind the autism epidemic.

Note: this is a significantly revised and updated version of a previously published article.

Direct to Consumer Advertising

I believe much of the blindness to the toxicity of vaccines was a result of Clinton’s 1997 decision to have the FTC allow direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers. There are a lot of issues with this practice (the USA and New Zealand are essentially the only countries that allow it), and one effect it had was putting financial pressure on networks not to air stories critical of pharmaceuticals once they had become dependent on their advertising revenue.

Prior to this shift, news programs that were critical of vaccination would periodically be aired and were pivotal in awakening the public to the dangers of vaccination. Consider, for example, this 1978 program that was aired about a rushed experimental vaccine that ended up injuring a significant number of participants (and never would be aired today).

Note: while severe reactions (Guillain-Barré Syndrome) officially occurred in 1 in 100,000 people, when the vaccine came out, we saw numerous people it happened to, so I am relatively sure that figure greatly understates the actual harm.

In contrast, despite millions of people being severely injured or killed by the COVID vaccines and immense public interest in the topic, there was virtually no reporting in the mass media about the harms the vaccines were causing. Sadly, that is just one of many illustrations of how corrosive pharmaceutical advertising dollars are. For example:

•RFK Jr. was close friends with the chairman and CEO of Fox News. RFK Jr. has repeatedly shared that Ailes was very supportive of RFK Jr. producing a segment on the dangers of mercury in vaccines, but ultimately was forced to scrap the production because the majority of Fox’s advertisements came from the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., 17-18 of the 22 advertisements on a typical nightly news show).

•The only Fox News host who actively spoke out against the COVID vaccines was Tucker Carlson (as he was able to leverage his position as the most popular news anchor in America to air his opinions), but was fired immediately after he aired a scathing critique of how our media had sold out the American people for Pfizer and Moderna.”

Andrew Wakefield

Whenever the subject of vaccination and autism is raised (particularly within medical circles), you will immediately be told (often in a condescending manner) some variant of the following:

Andrew Wakefield was a dishonest doctor who was bribed by lawyers to torture children and publish a fraudulent and deeply flawed study that falsely linked vaccines to autism. His abhorrent actions deeply violated the profound trust we place in scientists, and tricked people into believing vaccines cause autism. Remarkably, even though his study has been totally discredited and he lost his medical license for the gross misconduct he committed, his fraudulent study cemented the lie that vaccines cause autism, and despite all the data we publish, nothing can undo the profound damage Wakefield did to science so nothing like this must ever happen again.

While most things do not get under my skin, this has become because of how nauseating it is to hear it repeatedly. This, in turn, touches on a key point. One of the most common ways the corporate propaganda apparatus (known as the Public Relations or PR industry) persuades the public is by sculpting the narrative best suited for swaying public opinion and then blasting it on every media platform while any opposing viewpoint is forbidden from being aired. These lies then become entrenched and everyone starts to independently repeat them as though the idea were their own (e.g., we witness one of the most over-the-top PR campaigns in history to sell the COVID-19 vaccines and before long much of the populace was zealously espousing its nonsensical talking points).

Since Wakefield’s study was published in 1998 (a year after pharmaceutical television advertising became permissible), it was able to initially gain immense traction in the press (as the media had not yet been bought out), but a few years later, when that monopoly had established itself, it was instead debunked on every platform.

Note: Sharyl Attkinson, a popular national news anchor for CBS and an Emmy-Award winning journalist shared that in the early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry, feeling the pressure negative coverage of disastrous vaccination programs was creating for them, lobbied to prevent future negative coverage, and after this happened, it became impossible for her to air well produced segments which were critical of any vaccine initiative

In my eyes, there are three critical points to understand from Wakefield’s experience.

First, it cemented the lie that no one had ever thought to associate vaccination with brain injuries prior to Wakefield’s study (and hence that all subsequent associations were a product of Wakefield tricking them into seeing a connection that wasn’t there). As the 1982 news program shows, this is clearly not true and likewise the reason Wakefield did the study was because he was approached by parents who already thought vaccines caused their child’s autism.

More importantly, if you read through the early medical literature (prior to vaccine injuries becoming a taboo subject), many doctors over the decades had reported brain damage and characteristic neurological injuries (e.g., cranial nerve palsies) following vaccination that mirror what we see in vaccine-injured children now—many of which can be found within this excellent book by an eminent bacteriologist that summarized that early (forgotten) literature.

The Hazards Of Immunization (1967) by Sir Graham Wilson 2.01MB ∙ PDF file – Download —

Second, it gave a very clear warning to every academic journal and researcher to never consider publishing anything that was critical of vaccination (as otherwise they would be raked over the coals for decades by the entire media apparatus like Wakefield was). This worked as intended (e.g., many scientists have confided to public figures that they know that autism is linked to vaccination but cannot publicly study it) and since Wakefield’s study, virtually no studies have been conducted on vaccine injuries, and of those that were, none could ever be published in a “reputable” journal. Likewise, it cemented the lie the few doctored studies that get through are immediately removed (whereas for example, trial participants and clinical investigators for the HPV and COVID vaccines repeatedly provided proof fraudulent data was published but the academic journals never even issues a correction).
Note: Wakefield’s study was published in one of the world’s top medical journals (The Lancet). Given how controversial the subject was, it was virtually guaranteed that an exhaustive peer review was conducted of his findings and that The Lancet chose to publish the study not because “Wakefield tricked them” but rather because his data was valid and did not claim anything more than what his data clearly showed.

Third, Wakefield determined a process that appeared to be contributing to the disease process in autism and that many have since found was effective in addressing the condition. However, rather than being considered, it was blackballed and forgotten.

Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

One of the primary purposes of propaganda campaigns is to defend things that are logically indefensible, and since there are a limited number of ways to pull that off, you will gradually begin to see the ways this is accomplished. This in turn is why many were able to see through the marketing campaign used to sell the COVID vaccines, and more importantly, why so many lost their trust in the childhood vaccines they had never questioned before.

For example, if you look at the vaccine-and-autism question, a few major issues emerge:

•While many parents have observed their healthy children suddenly regress and become severely impaired immediately after a vaccine (with the regression occurring in a characteristic and replicable manner), to my knowledge, there are no reported cases of rapid autistic regressions happening immediately prior to a vaccination.

I have met a fair share of people with identical experiences to the parents in this audience.

I suspect that in the near future we will see the same for those with COVID-19 injuries, and like before, almost everyone will deny they exist. pic.twitter.com/o9EtKcTgCs

— A Midwestern Doctor (@MidwesternDoc) December 26, 2022

In contrast, the most common argument used to dismiss a link between vaccines and autism is that “autism tends to emerge at the same age vaccines are given, so the association parents perceive is coincidental, which Andrew Wakefield tricked them into seeing.” If this were indeed true, there would be a roughly even distribution of autism cases before and after vaccination rather than what we actually observe.

2. Over the past 50 years, there has been an exponential increase in the rates of autism (e.g., it’s gone from affecting 1 in 10,000 children to 1 in 31). This rapid increase suggests something is causing it, and more importantly, that it is absolutely urgent for us to figure out what that something is as each autism case is immensely costly to society. This is not sustainable once it starts to affect a significant number of children. However, rather than identify that cause, the scientific community, for decades, has simply said “we need more research” to figure out what it is (while simultaneously declaring it is definitely not vaccines despite vaccines being by far the most probable culprit).”

Note: while I believe the strongest case can be made for vaccines causing the autism epidemic, there are a few other factors (e.g., excessive prenatal ultrasounds) that data suggest may also play a contributing role.”

3. The most common explanation given for the explosion in autism is that “it’s genetic,” and as the years go by and billions are spent on autism research, more and more genes are identified that are associated with autism. This train of thought, however, ignores:
•Despite all that research, the “autism gene” has never been found.
•If autism suddenly became over 100 times more common in 1-2 generations, it is impossible that this could have been due to a genetic shift.
•In addition to this rapid change arguing for an environmental toxin (rather than genetics) causing the autism epidemic, many of the genes “linked to autism” share the common thread of increasing one’s sensitivity to environmental toxins.
Note: Peter Hotez is often used as a media attack dog to discredit anyone linking vaccines to autism and frequently cites his book “Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism” as an authoritative debunking of any links between the two. I read Hotez’s book and noticed that he never proved his claim (rather, he just said it didn’t make sense to him how autism could be anything except genetic) and described a classic sign of vaccine encephalitis (a continual, very loud, and piercing cry) prior to his daughter’s autistic regression.

4. While many studies are published debunking the link between vaccines and autism, they never directly assess the question. Independent studies (whose validity is always questioned) continually find an indisputable link between the two (along with vaccination being linked to many other chronic illnesses). A schism like this would argue for a robust trial to settle the question (e.g., a randomized one that compared a group of vaccinated and unvaccinated children from birth), but each time that is proposed, it’s shot down because “it’s not ethical to withhold lifesaving vaccines from children” when the next best alternative is proposed (access to the CDC’s database that compared vaccinated children to unvaccinated children), for some reason, that too is always shot down.
Note: in one instance, a CDC whistleblower came forward and showed that after the CDC conducted a study to disprove the link between autism and vaccines, when they discovered it actually caused autism, the study was doctored to conceal this.

All of this hence suggests vaccines are strongly linked to autism and helps to explain why both the media and much of the Democratic leadership went hysterical after RFK Jr. stated he planned to conduct robust studies to determine what was actually causing the autism epidemic.

Note: For those interested in learning more about how vaccines cause autism, I would strongly recommend reading Steve Kirsch’s article. He does a good job of concisely presenting some of the most compelling evidence (e.g., specific cases where vaccination was irrefutably linked to autism and the hundreds of papers on the subject).

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Do Vaccines Cause Autism? appeared first on LewRockwell.