Lew Rockwell Institute

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), on behalf of concerned citizens, filed a request for an emergency injunction June 27 against the city of Richmond to prevent previously removed Monument Avenue Beaux Arts monuments and cannons from being sent to LA’s Monuments Exhibition in the Museum of Contemporary Art. The show, which will open this fall, will be a controversial display of some graffiti laden and damaged Confederate sculptures along with modern works satirizing the South. The negative condition of some of the pieces will only serve to stir up racial animus and animosity toward Confederate memorials still standing. A number of the monuments started to be vandalized after the Charleston shooting event of 2015 and more memorials were attacked and removed in the aftermath of the 2020 riots. In addition, the exhibition has condemned the South in their press release as “white supremacists” for putting up funerary monuments well after the Civil War even though the North similarly put up funerary monuments well after the war.

The LA Monuments show ignores basic facts about the aftermath of the Civil War. Having a good death in 1800s was very important, meaning if possible, being surrounded family and friends when passing as Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson experienced. Since that was impossible on the battlefield, being given a decent burial became meaningful. This period saw new developments in embalming techniques that allowed the dead whenever possible to be transported back to their homes for burial, thus the need for numerous funerary monuments mostly organized by grieving widows. Since over 600,000 died in the war, the extreme grief was felt by both sides and given tribute by monuments and statues even later when grandparents and relatives died.

Unlike the SVBF, Richmond’s Valentine Museum has cooperated with LA, and has worked to help coordinate this exhibit with the Black History Museum (BHM.) Their director, Shakia G. Warren, hopes that the LA exhibition will “spark national dialogue on race and power.”  According to the Valentine’s director, Bill Martin, they’re sending the supine paint splashed Valentine sculpture of Jefferson Davis. 1907, and he has stated publicly that preserving the toilet paper noose, paint and other evidence of vandalism is vitally important. (“Why History Matters” symposium, Virginia Museum of History and Culture,  Nov. 4th, 2023) He explained that the Black History Museum will be sending pieces [including the Matthew Fontaine Maury Monument] as well. There remains some controversy as to which sculptures the BHM has jurisdiction even though they’re shipping them to LA.

The SVBF’s court proceedings so far have yet to decide ownership for Richmond’s historic monuments, that were created for the general public and funded by residents of all racial backgrounds, white, ’negro’ and ‘Indian.’ (Richmond News Leader, R. B. Mumford, Jr., “Dream of Maury Memorial True After Years of Toil”, 1929; Richmond Public Library Maury Monument File.) At present, the court has ignored the SBVF’s request for an emergency injunction to stop the monuments from being sent to LA due to the chance of irreparable harm to the fine art and the fact that few monument protection laws exist in California. On August 14th a Judge in Shenandoah Valley Circuit Court refused to hear particulars of the SVBF suit, setting a new hearing date for August 26th, when legal ownership of Richmond’s public art which stood on Monument Avenue over 100 years, will be contested. Unfortunately, the priceless art works may already have been sent to LA by that date.

In contrast to Richmond’s stalemate, Charleston’s preservationists have scored a victory in court. The recently created non-profit, the Calhoun Monument Preservation Society, achieved a settlement from the city of Charleston. The previously removed statue of U.S. Vice President John C. Calhoun, 1896, by Scottish-American artist John Massey Rhind, will not be going to LA’s Monuments exhibition, as the museum requested. Instead, it will go to a new Charleston location and not replaced on Marion Square.

Brett Barry, President of the American Heritage Association, which oversaw the Calhoun court case, explained, “We have had an outpouring of support from businesses and donors that want to help. The Calhoun monument is on track to be the first monument re-erected since the late unpleasantness of 2020.  However, we may be getting another monument re-erect before Calhoun (stay tuned!)”

A spokesman for the Monumental Task Committee, a preservationist group in New Orleans, complained that his group is being stonewalled about which Confederate sculptures would be sent to LA. He said, “We met with the lieutenant governor and attorney general and they didn’t seem to know which statues have been requested by LA.” The group wants to find out which pieces are at risk of being shipped so that they can start a court action to oppose sending them to the LA museum show. A poll on their website shows the same figure seen around the country, that ⅔ in Louisiana want their Confederate statues standing.

Just as in New Orleans where officials seem to be acting against residents in regards to Confederate statues, the US Congress recently saw a similar action to oppose the public’s will regarding Southern history. Secretary Hegseth in accordance with the public’s wishes has been renaming military bases with the original last names, but honoring a different solider. The original names had been erased by the now defunct Naming Commission.

On July 15, the House Armed Services Committee included an amendment to prevent the Pentagon from having funds to change the names back. One of the congressmen to endorse this amendment is Representative Don Bacon, Republican, Nebraska, who gave his opinion but never acknowledged that he and his colleges are going against the public. Bacon crossed party lines, along with Representative Derek Schmidt, Republican, Kansas, who refused to send a statement, to vote with the Democrats. Bacon explained, “I oppose having military bases named after Confederate generals who violated their oaths and, for the most part, were terrible generals. We passed renaming legislation in the 116th Congress with a Democrat House and a Republican Senate, and overrode a President’s [Trump’s] veto . . . It doesn’t get any better than Eisenhower [who admired Lee], Benavidez and Moore.”

While preservationists in several states wait for the outcome of which statues will be sent to LA’s Monuments exhibition against the public’s will, there is some good news regarding another historical monument. Moses Ezekiel’s Reconciliation Memorial, 1914, is being sent back to Arlington National Cemetery after a recent loan agreement with Secretary Hegseth and Governor Youngkin. It was reported that the cost to restore the monument would be a whopping $10 million and it would take two years. Ernest Everett Blevins, Historic Preservation expert, disagrees with the estimate. Blevins says the number of $10M to restore the monument is likely inflated, which often happens with estimates provided by the  Congressional Office of Budget. Blevins reasons the $3 million removal cost included Section 106 compliance and satisfying such things as the HABS documentation, which will not be needed to restore. He says, “It should cost less than $3M to restore the monument.” Even with new interior bolts and cleaning the cost would be “at worst case, $5M.”

In general, despite the exceptions, officials and the courts haven’t been responsive in a timely manner to prevent sending local commemorative Confederate war memorials to LA’s Monuments exhibition. 

The post Concerned Citizens Refuse to Send Confederate Sculptures to LA’s Monuments Exhibition appeared first on LewRockwell.

In previous columns, we have criticized President Trump for abandoning our traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, despite his campaign promises to reduce our commitments abroad. In this week’s column, I’d like to address another mistake Trump has made and continues to make. The mistake is not original to him but begins with Woodrow Wilson. This is the idea that wars can be settled by public meetings of the heads of state; in Trump’s language, he is trying to “broker a deal” between the contending parties.

Trump is a foreign-policy activist, but couldn’t, hypothetically, a non-interventionist president sponsor such meetings in order to promote peace? Even if we shouldn’t enter foreign wars, shouldn’t we try to encourage nations engaged in these wars to settle their disputes peacefully?

To my mind, the answer is clearly, “No, we shouldn’t.” First of all, these meetings invert the normal conduct of diplomacy. As an article in the New York Times on July 19, 2025 points out:

“First, President Trump rolled out the red carpet for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia for a high-stakes summit in Alaska. Then he brought the president of Ukraine and seven other European leaders to the White House for an extraordinary gathering to discuss an end to the war.

“Now comes the grunt work.

“Mr. Trump in the past week has effectively flipped the traditional diplomatic process on its head. After two critical meetings in four days aimed at ending the war in Ukraine, American and European diplomats scrambled to come up with detailed proposals for security guarantees and other sticking points that could upend any momentum to secure peace.

“Already, major gaps were becoming evident, including whether Russia would countenance U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, and whether Mr. Putin was serious about meeting with Mr. Zelensky face to face.

“Ironing out the details typically happens between staffers and diplomats before leaders step in to finalize the agreement. But Mr. Trump, ever one to toss out norms and traditions, went big last week in Alaska with Mr. Putin, then again at the White House on Monday, without any breakthroughs to announce. Now, with Russia continuing to hammer Ukraine and no sign that Mr. Trump or Mr. Putin see a cease-fire as a precondition for a deal, the process could devolve into a diplomatic version of trench warfare.”

Secondly, because these meetings are held in the glare of world-wide media coverage, the parties to a dispute will be reluctant to make concessions, since they know that their intransigent followers will be furious unless they maintain the hardest possible line.

Thirdly, suppose that somehow a settlement is successfully negotiated, but later one of the parties violated it. There would be enormous pressure from the other side on the United to enter the conflict. For example, if Zelensky agreed to cede part of the Dombas to Russia but fighting broke out again. The Ukrainian government would very likely claim that it had been betrayed and demand that American troops be sent to the region.

So far, we’ve covered the fallacies of presidential diplomacy. But we need to dig deeper. The whole notion of “open diplomacy” needs to be challenged. As the great historian Sir Ronald Syme pointed out, “open diplomacy” is a contradiction in terms. To be successful, diplomacy must take place in private, insulated from popular pressure.

It was the monstrous Woodrow Wilson who initiated “open diplomacy.” In the First Point of the Fourteen Points (January 8, 1918), Wilson declared: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.”

The distinguished diplomat and historian Harold Nicolson aptly notes in his book Diplomacy (Oxford University Press, 1939) that reality was far different. Wilson went to the Paris Peace Conference and did not conduct diplomacy publicly, He negotiated in secret. As Nicolson says: “Less than a year after making this pronouncement, President Wilson was himself called upon to negotiate one of the most important covenants that have ever been concluded, namely the Treaty of Versailles. That treaty was certainly an open covenant since its terms were published before they were submitted to the approval of the sovereign authority in the several signatory States. Yet with equal certainty it was not ‘openly arrived at.’ In fact few negotiations in history have been so secret, or indeed so occult. Not only were Germany and her allies excluded from any part in the discussion; not only were all the minor Powers kept in the dark regarding the several stages of the negotiations ; not only were the press accorded no information beyond the most meagre of official bulletins ; but in the end President Wilson shut himself up in his own study with Lloyd George and Clemenceau, while an American marine with fixed bayonet marched up and down in order to prevent the intrusion of all experts, diplomatists or plenipotentiaries, including even the President’s own colleagues on the American Delegation. I am not contending for the moment that such secrecy was not inevitable, I am merely pointing out that it was unparalleled. It proves that the highest apostle of ‘open diplomacy’ found, when it came to practice, that open negotiation was totally unworkable. And it shows how false was the position into which President Wilson (a gifted and in many ways a noble man) had placed himself, by having failed, in January 1918, to foresee that there was all the difference in the world between  ‘open covenants’ and  ‘openly arrived at ” — between policy and negotiation.” [I definitely don’t agree that Wilson was “in many ways a noble man,” though he at least had the merit of telling the truth about the evils of Reconstruction after the War Between the States]

George Kennan takes a similar view. In his book American Diplomacy, 1900-1950 (University of Chicago Press, 1951), Kennan says: “The Allies were fighting to make the world safe for democracy. . .There would be open diplomacy this time; peoples, not governments would run things. The peace would be just and secure. . .Under the shadow of this theory Wilson went to Versailles unprepared to face the sordid butall-important details of the day of reckoning. . .No diplomacy can be effective if everything is said in public. The very possibility of compromise is destroyed if each step of the negotiation is exposed to popular passions.”

John J. Mearsheimer elaborated on Kennan’s argument in a reissue of Kennan’s book. “This state of affairs is compounded by the fact that governments usually have to motivate their publics to make enormous sacrifices to win a great power war. Most importantly, some substantial number of citizens has to be convinced to serve in the military and possibly die for their country. One way that leaders inspire their people to fight modern wars is to portray the adversary as the epitome of evil and a mortal threat to boot. This behavior, it should be noted, is not limited to democracies as Kennan thought. Doing so, however, makes it almost impossible to negotiate an end to a war short of total victory. After all, how can one negotiate with an adversary that is thought to be the devil incarnate? It makes much more sense to pull out every punch to decisively defeat that opponent and get it to surrender unconditionally. Of course, both sides are invariably drawn to this conclusion, which rules out any hope of a negotiated compromise.”

Let’s do everything we can to end presidential summits and “open diplomacy.” Let’s instead return to our traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism.

The post The ‘Open Diplomacy’ Fallacy appeared first on LewRockwell.

I deplore the blame game, so often used to divert attention from the real issue or problem. I rail against the fake binaries deliberately created to divide and rule us, and yet, in this article, I refer to billionaire oligarchs—and their establishment—as “the parasite class.” Please bear with me, I will attempt to explain this apparent hypocrisy.

A current internet search on the term “oligarchy” will repeatedly try to convince you that oligarchy relates specifically to Russia. This is complete rubbish.

An oligarch is someone who has amassed immense wealth and converted it into political and social authority. That is what an oligarch has always been, ever since humanity started calling them “oligarchs.” Russia is an oligarchy but, as revealed by almost all political theory and the thousands of years of political philosophy, science and history, so is every other nation state.

The question is how does one become an oligarch? The suggestion is that some achieve oligarch status due to their shrewd business acumen. Many people are astute in business but that alone is not enough to rise to the oligarchy. In order to be an oligarch you have to be accepted by the other oligarchs. If oligarchs oppose you, your business will probably be crushed, or at least severely restricted, and access to political authority or social influence will be stifled.

Some are hereditary oligarchs, others become fabulously wealthy by virtue of operating practical monopolies, others benefit from nepotism and others leverage their network connections. But all oligarchs achieve and then maintain their power and influence through exploitation. Whether it is wage slavery—or simply slavery—industrial espionage, lawfare, war, other forms of violence, debt leverage, economic oppression, land grabs, theft or just deceit, the oligarchy is a gaggle of robber barons.

There is nothing inherently wrong with philanthropy but oligarchs use philanthropy to engineer society in their favour, create new markets for themselves, and increase their political and/or social authority. In short, the oligarch stands apart from the ordinary wealthy by virtue, not only of the scale of their wealth but, most notably, by the unscrupulous self-serving manner in which they acquire and abuse the authority their immense wealth affords them.

We, the people, are the source of both the oligarchs wealth and the political authority they hoard. While we may glean some benefit from the activities of the oligarchy—such as employment or infrastructure investment, etc.—this relationship is far more beneficial to the oligarch than it is to us. Otherwise, the oligarchy wouldn’t bother.

The definition of a parasite is:

An organism that lives on or in another and derives its nourishment therefrom

The definition of social class is:

A group of people within a society who possess the same socioeconomic status.

An oligarch’s only socioeconomic peer is another oligarch. The oligarchy’s collective effect upon society is parasitic.

The oligarchy is the parasite class.

Introducing Elite Theory

The common term we are given to refer to oligarchs is “the elite.” The fact that we commonly use this language to describe the parasite class is a clear example of social engineering. Unless we break free from the linguistic chains that bind our thoughts and control how we discuss the oligarchy we will continue to be ruled by them, whether we like it or not.

The concept of the “elite” largely stems from “elite theory”: a branch of political science that sprang up in the late 19th and early 20th century. Elite theory tries to explain why society is divided between the broad mass of the people and a ruling minority who always hold power.

Elite theory supposedly provides a scientific rationale to explain why, no matter where or when we look, a tiny clique controls nearly all the resources and possesses overwhelming financial, economic and political power, which they then use to rule. Throughout history, this deleterious power dynamic has sometimes been recognised by the people—who usually opposed it once they realised it—but mostly not. We largely accept it, as if it were some sort of organic aspect of society.

Broadly speaking, elite theory has rehashed ideas that are thousands of years old. As an academic field, elite theory is yet to present anything new. It reveals that all forms of government are essentially oligarchies, but most political historians already knew that. All “elite theory” does is reinforce many of the canards we are expected to swallow.

In elite theory the the word “elite” is a polysemic term that can mean “aristocracy,” in the classical sense. It comes from the French “aristocracie,” meaning “government by those who are the best citizens.” This is derived from the Greek ”aristokratia,” meaning “government or rule of [by] the best.”

In order to avoid obviously eulogising oligarchs too much, “elite” is also used by other elite theorists to denote a “ruling class,” absent the “aristokratia” inference. The etymology of the word “elite” is formed from the French “élite” meaning “pick out, choose,” derived from the Latin eligere, meaning “choose.”

Elite theory alternately perceives “the elite” as the best among us who lead by merit or as the ruling or “political class” we sometimes choose. The political class interpretation stems from the work of Gaetano Mosca (1858 – 1941) who noted that oligarchs often gained power using coercion and violence but were particularly well organised and thus, with control of nearly all resources, ruled.

Either way, there is a suggestion that oligarchs benefit from some kind of meritocracy. Use of “meritocracy” can be traced back to Plato (c. 424/423 – 348/347 BCE)—more on him shortly—and is now used to denote, according the Oxford English Dictionary, “a ruling or influential class of educated or able people” or “government or the holding of power by people selected according to merit.” The oligarch is either the best among us or a powerful member of a well organised clique. Or so say elite theorists and publications that serve the oligarchs.

In modern use, the word “meritocracy” was popularised by the sociologist Michael Dunlop Young (1915-2002). He used it as a ironic spoof, warning people that selecting “leaders,” based upon their social status and formal educational qualifications, was a sure-fire way of ending up with completely crap government. That “meritocracy” has come to mean something “good” disappointed him until his dying day.

The problem with the common acceptance of the word “elite,” based upon “elite theory,” is that it suggests an inevitability. As if being ordered around by a bunch of oligarchs—call them black nobs, stakeholder capitalist, banksters or whatever—is just the way it is. It is as it always has been, so get used to it. Resistance is futile!

Vilfredo Pareto (1848 – 1923) has been credited with coining the term “the elite.” He offered his “circulation of the elite” theory which posited that conflict between “elites” often sees one group supplant another at the top of the hierarchical social structure. The other aspect of “circulation” was that individuals move in and out of elite circles.

Pareto noted that the elite were human beings capable of doing good but also of committing great evil. Although he maintained that they ruled as a result of their distinguished abilities and exceptional virtues.

Wikipedia, which is useful for names, dates and official histories but little else, claims that the American philosopher C. Wright Mills (1916 – 1962), who wrote about the “power elite,” is the right guy to go to if you want to understand all there is to know about the elite. Being Wikipedia, that opinion, offered as some sort of fact, is wrong.

Mills argued that the “power elite” just happen. They are an inevitable consequence of modern bureaucratic and technological society. This necessarily places authority in the hands of those who lead its institutions. If the elite, with their control of resources, didn’t lead these institutions, Mills claimed they wouldn’t function.

Mills rejected Mosca’s concept of the “politicqal class.” Instead “the elite” circulated, as Valfredo suggested, and rose out of the corporate organisations that dominated the US economy to become the “corporate rich.”

Mills suggested a “tripartate” model of US society, broadly split into the “power elite,” the “opinion leaders” and the public. This came as a bit of a shock to 1950’s Americans who viewed the US as an “egalitarian meritocracy.”.

He said that government, local leaders and interest groups formed the “opinion leaders” and the public were powerless, clueless proles who, unwittingly, were completely reliant upon the power elite for their economic survival. The public wrongly imagined that the opinion leaders made the decisions. Whereas, Mills demonstrated, the “power elite” dominated the institutions of the economy (corporations), the military and the government. The parasite class shared a common perspective and were the real decision makers.

But, to Mills’ mind, there was no “conspiracy” to see. The power elite controlled the resources, the economy and the lives of the little people. Like Pareto, he acknowledged that they could make both beneficial and disastrous decisions, but this was just a necessary and unavoidable function of a hierarchical society he said.

In short, Mills’ take on “elite theory” was in keeping with its general trajectory. It is consistently favourable to those who like to be thought of as “the elite,” even when it criticises them. Someone’s got to be in charge and, according nearly all elite theorists, it’s “the elite.”

Robert Michels (1876 – 1936) said that the technical demands of society made oligarch leadership indispensable to the survival of an organisation. Like Mills, Mosca and Pareto, etc., Michels believed that oligarchs achieved their status because they possessed superior knowledge, skills, and wealth. Michels added that this enabled them, not only to control their own compliant networks but also dissenting groups.

While Mosca viewed the elite’s organisational skills as a tool that enabled them to form the “political class,” Michels identified the same abilities as key to transforming the political structure into an oligarchy. Essentially, he argued, political parties were ruled by oligarchs who held all the power and shaped all the policies. This left the membership and the “grassroots” party activists floundering around, wrongly imagining they had some sort of say over the direction of the party.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Parasite Class Tricks of Today appeared first on LewRockwell.

When a state of National Emergency was declared on February 15, 2019, not many realized that we were closer to martial law than we had been in recent years.  The declaration of a National Emergency gives the office of the president additional power to institute Martial Law should he or she sees fit to do so.  Numerous other countries around the world have already experienced martial law and have seen first hand the harmful effects that follow.

In this article, we’ll discuss 5 signs that should be a warning that martial law may be coming and we’ll discuss how you can prepare.

What is Martial Law

Before we begin discussing the signs that lead to Martial Law, let’s first discuss what it is and how is it different from a National Emergency or the State of Emergency.

Martial Law at its most basic level is defined as a law that allows the military to take control of civilian functions in a state or country.  When implemented, the military becomes the state or the country’s governing body, resulting in civil laws, rights, and the habeas corpus being suspended.

It’s important to note that during a National Emergency your constitutional freedoms are suspended.  However, the main difference between a state of National Emergency and Martial Law is that during a National Emergency, the military doesn’t need to take control of civilian functions.  But you should keep in mind that Martial Law could quickly follow a declaration of National Emergency. During both of these scenarios, your civilian rights can be suspended allowing the government to impose its will, rules, and regulations on citizens.

When Has Martial Law been Implemented in the U.S.?

The U.S. President and the Congress can declare Martial Law on a federal level, while the Governors in each state can declare Martial Law within the borders of their respective states.  In 2006, H.R. 5122 or the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law and it gave the president the power to declare martial law and take control of each state’s National Guard without consent from state governors.

The United States of America has also seen its fair share of martial law as a result of:

• Foreign attacks
• Civil violence and protests
• And after major disasters

Has martial law been declared on a national level?  Yes, it was declared once during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln declared that the country was under military rule.

On a regional level, Martial Law has been declared on several occasions.  Here are a few examples:

• On December 7, 1941, the Hawaii Governor declared martial law on the Territory of Hawaii following the attacks of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor.
  • Subsequently, the Department of War expanded the martial declaration to Washington, Oregon, and California in February 1942.
    • In March 1942, the entire U.S. Pacific Coast was put under military rule.
• On May 21, 1961, the Alabama State Governor declared martial law to prevent civil rights activists from demonstrating in the state.

There are many more cases where Martial Law was declared within different states resulting in some instances of reports of abuse of power and leaders not wanting to relinquish that power.

Signs That Martial Law is Coming

As pointed out, Martial Law is usually declared following a crisis or emergency that is plaguing the country or state.  Usually, this is in the form of war, natural disaster, or civil unrest. But in this modern era in which we now live, there are other more looming threats, some that have only recently developed due largely to technical innovation, that could trigger Martial Law.  And unfortunately, some of these threats could be catastrophic, which shows that Martial Law would indeed be implemented if any one of these were to come to pass.

1. Economic Crisis – Probably the most dangerous emergency that could cause a declaration of Martial Law is a severe economic crisis.  This is a major concern since so many of the world’s economies, including the U.S., are increasingly in a delicate balance of interconnectivity.  One major financial incident could potentially trigger an economic collapse in another country much like dominos. And with industrialized nations being more interconnected today than ever before, the incident doesn’t have to happen on U.S. soil for the country to feel the negative impact of that financial incident.  Like in 2007, when the U.S. experienced the subprime mortgage market crisis which developed into a full-blown international banking crisis affecting many countries around the world. A repeat of this incident in 2019 could be even more catastrophic and far-reaching as the impact would reverberate around the world. If the even spun out of control resulting in a collapse of the financial sector, Martial Law could be implemented to try and restore order to avoid panic and an all-out collapse.
   1. Fears that the U.S. economy could contract has intensified after several media outlets put forth damning reports just last week.  On August 14, 2019, a reliable indicator showing the possibility of a recession has appeared. That indicator is called inverted yield curve, which shows that the interest rates of short-term bonds, which are bonds that have a maturity of less than 5-years, are higher than the interest rates of long-term bonds, those with a maturity of 5-years and above.  An economy that is healthy would usually have high-interest rates for long-term bonds compared to short-term ones. This doesn’t bode well for the U.S. economy. CBN News reports that history has shown that recession follows within several months to two years after an inverted yield curve is spotted. This could lead the Federal Reserve to cut short-term interest rates to try and prevent the economy from plunging into a recession.
   2. The Washington Post also mentioned that the inverted yield curve is suggesting investors are losing faith in the economy in the short-term.  High-interest rates are normally given to long-term bonds so the government can attract more investors to them. But since the interest rates of short-term bonds are higher, this means that more people are investing in the bond market for the long-term, as they’re losing confidence in the economy’s short-term prospects.  The report also mentioned that a contraction of two large economies, the United Kingdom and Germany, and a slowdown of China’s growth is not making things any better for the U.S. It is also worth mentioning that global leaders are currently not collaborating to try and do something about the economic slowdown and contraction that are impacting numerous countries at the moment.
2. Cyber Threat – The second dangerous emergency that could cause martial law is a cyberattack. Governments and corporations have obviously taken advantage of the advancement in technology and the rise of the internet.  The downside is that this makes them dependent on cyberspace and the internet leaving them vulnerable to a cyberattack. Forbes reported that last August 16, the State of Texas experienced a cyberattack that caused 23 government agencies to go offline.  The attack was identified as ransomware and it came from a single threat actor. This is the reality that a lot of agencies and companies face on a daily basis, especially if they’re dependent on the internet. If a coordinated attack coming from a single threat actor can take out 23 government agencies of a state, imagine what several threats can do to a country and how it can paralyze agencies and industries.  A large scale cyber threat resulting in a shutdown of the nation’s infrastructure and banking system (just to name a few) could be used as an emergency to declare martial law on a national level.
   1. The threat of a cyberattack is very real and it can happen anytime and sometimes without warning.  Working in the IT sector, in my opinion, this is one of the greatest threats our country currently faces but so few people are aware of.  This is why the director of Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley said in a cyber conference in Aspen last July that the immediate danger of a cyberattack is what keeps him awake at night.  The U.S. is already involved in cyber warfare with the Middle East, in particular, Iran. Then there’s also Russia and China, who are both large threats in cyberspace. The two countries are considered as the world’s leader in cyber warfare and we got a taste of them meddling in our last presidential election.  Though the U.S. military and government are well protected, the private sector doesn’t have this level of protection. They are vulnerable to these cyber threats and an attack on a major company will likely have a devastating effect on the country.
   2. If a cyber threat were to happen in the U.S., expect the government to do everything in its power to ensure that order will be maintained.  So much of our nation’s infrastructure depends on a delicate balance of everything working smoothly. A great example is the grocery store’s just-in-time delivery system.  If the systems that ensure our food inventories are shipped just-in-time is compromised, expect food shortages at your local grocery stores. As the saying goes, we’re just 3 meals away from anarchy.  Again, this is just one small example that could be the tipping point forcing Martial Law on the nation.
3. EMP Attack – An EMP is another form of attack that could trigger the declaration of Martial Law. An EMP, or Electromagnetic Pulse, can decimate electrical devices within the vicinity of its burst, making it extremely dangerous given how dependent we are on our electrical devices as pointed out in the previous point.  Terror groups or any other hostile groups could use an EMP attack to return a city or region back to the dark ages, which is likely to cause panic, chaos, and riots as people would scramble for whatever supplies they can get their hands on. A declaration of martial law would surely follow if ever this kind of attack happens in the country.
   1. Though an EMP attack is possible, the probability of it happening is low. There are a lot of factors that terrorists or rogue nations need to accomplish to successfully launch an EMP attack on the U.S.  Many experts believe that the threat of an EMP attack is low on the list of credible threats. Possible, but not necessarily probable. Nevertheless, President Trump signed an Executive Order on March 23, 2019, with the intent to protect the country from an EMP attack.  The order established a policy with a stated goal of increasing the country’s resistance to such an attack in the event it should occur.
   2. Should a large enough EMP attack impact the entire country, the nation would effectively be returned to the stone age.  The outlook for survival for the general population would be low. The federal government would have no choice but to enact martial law to ensure the survival of its citizens.
4. Civil Unrest – This is another emergency that could force the U.S. government to declare Martial Law.  Looking at the country’s history, you can see a lot of the reasons state governors have declared Martial Law in their respective states due primarily to riots and strikes, with some becoming violent.  Strikes are still prevalent in the U.S. even now and a large-scale strike or demonstration could still give the federal government reason to declare Martial Law in the country. Last August 17, 2019, Portland, Oregon almost became a battleground for civil unrest when the far-right white supremacist Proud Boys demonstrated on the city and they were met with a counter-demonstration from the anti-fascist group Rose City Antifa.  If it weren’t for the city’s police force keeping things under control, the demonstration could have become more violent.
   1. This demonstration in Portland, Oregon is just one of the many examples that show how divided the U.S. is right now.  Inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides is dividing people even more based on party, mindset, and race.
   2. The media is not helping with this issue either.  Many of the news sites and outlets are shown to cater more or be biased towards certain ideas and groups, something that has been happening for years, but escalating more in the last several years.  News outlets on both ends of the spectrum are increasingly spinning their stories toward a specific political view that is more of a biased narrative than sticking to the facts. This is only deepening people’s biases and beliefs even more, forcing them to see the “other side” as their enemy.  This has resulted in keeping people divided, paving the way for more possible clashes similar to what transpired in Portland, Oregon last August 17.
5. Natural Disasters – The last emergency that could cause a martial law declaration are natural disasters. The U.S. has experienced a lot of natural disasters throughout its history.  In the last 3 years alone, the country experienced 9 natural disasters that claimed thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in damages.  History has also shown that the government is more than willing to declare Martial Law to ensure the safety and orderliness of the country, state, or city, in the aftermath of a disaster.  This is probably one of the emergencies that cannot really be prevented, but only be prepared for it. For example, here in Southern California, we’re constantly being warned about the “big one” and how we’re overdue for a large earthquake that normally happens every 150 years along the San Andreas fault.  While no one knows when it will exactly happen, experts warn that it will result in a large death toll.
   1. The fear of the Big One happening has been amplified lately, especially after the Earthquake Track recorded more than 3,000 small earthquakes happening in California just in the past 30 days.  The frequency of these small quakes has some asking if this is a sign the Big One is about to come.  Unfortunately, no one really knows when it is likely to occur other than it is far overdue.
   2. While there are many other natural disasters our nation faces, such as hurricanes on a seasonal basis, it is not an unlikely scenario for the government to declare Martial Law in the aftermath of a devastating natural disaster.

Read the Whole Article

The post 5 Warning Signs That Martial Law Is Imminent appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yale’s medical school is widely considered to have one of the top autoimmunity research and treatment programs in America. As long COVID is considered to be immunological in nature, their researchers extensively studied it, and remarkably some of them then pivoted to also studying vaccine injuries (in part because the COVID vaccines rather than curing long COVID patients, sometimes made them much worse). A few days ago, they finished a new research paper on the subject, but like their previous ones, it was immediately summarily rejected by the “reputable” journals it was submitted to (including the one I feel was the most obligated to publish these findings). In this article, I aim to cover the importance of their most recent results and, more important, examine what their habitual censorship reveals about science in general.

Yale’s LISTEN Study

All of this research was conducted within Yale’s LISTEN Study (Listen to Immune, Symptom and Treatment Experiences Now) where a group of patients with both long COVID and then COVID vaccine injuries were extensively followed, evaluated (e.g., for symptoms and biomarkers) then analyzed to develop a consistent clinical picture of the diseases. As this is an extremely important study. I’ve been in touch with participants throughout the study, who’ve shared data consistent with our observations of vaccine-injured patients over the last four years.

Initially, in 2023, they shared some of their preliminary data as a November 2023 preprint (which has still not been accepted for publication) which detailed the common symptoms seen in the 241 participants with post vaccination syndrome (PVS), which match what we’ve seen in clinical practice:

To quote the study:

In conclusion, people reporting PVS after covid-19 vaccination in this study are highly symptomatic, have poor health status, and have tried many treatment strategies without success. As PVS is associated with considerable suffering, there is an urgent need to understand its mechanism to provide prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies.

Note: these results were discussed in more detail in this October 2023 online conference (e.g., the mast cell component of the illness). From watching this conference, my impression was that the investigators sincerely want to help the trial participants, but due to the unpleasant implications of their findings, are in a very challenging position (hence why their 2023 pre-print has still not been published).

In February 2025, they published a much more detailed study, that unfortunately also remains a preprint (as no journal would publish it). It was comprised of 42 post-vaccine syndrome (vaccine-injured) participants (and 22 controls) and detected a variety of concerning changes. These included lower CD4 cells and elevated TNFα+ and CD8 T cells (which equates to a picture of immune suppression and autoimmunity). Additionally, post-vaccine syndrome (PVS) participants had a tendency for the re-activation of chronic infections and had a chronic persistence of the spike protein. The more detailed data was as follows:

General Health

Vaccine-injured individuals reported lower general health scores, such as lower physical function scores, higher anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain scores and increased sleep disturbances.

This is important because it demonstrates that vaccine injuries are a real condition with actual health effects (rather than just ‘being in your head’).

To my knowledge, their second study provides the best demonstration that the COVID vaccine persists for a prolonged period within the body and when present, typically is much higher than in controls.

Total spike protein present in each participant at final evaluation

This data collectively shows that:

• The COVID vaccine spike protein can persist for years in the body. The major limitation with each previous study was that spike was still found at the end of the study duration, so it was not possible to know how long it actually persisted. As this study shows, a few months was not long enough to measure the spike protein’s persistence, as in some cases, it lasted for close to two years (and were it to be measured again, might last even longer).

• In many cases, COVID spike protein persistence eventually stopped but symptoms continued. Assuming this is correct, that means in many cases the vaccine will eventually be eliminated (which may depend upon the vaccine lot they received), and that not all of the post-vaccine symptoms are a result of persistent spike protein production.

• The persistence of the spike protein without any proof of a natural infection provides strong evidence the vaccine’s spike protein is what’s persisting in the body.

Note: numerous other studies (discussed here), the earliest of which was a March 2022 one by Stanford, have also shown the COVID vaccine persists in the body. While this persistence is typically attributed to the vaccine mRNA integrating with the host’s DNA (which does happen), leading to perpetual mRNA production, both I and Dr. Malone (a leading expert in this area) believe the primary (and far more probable) source of persistence was the mRNA being modified to resist degradation (leading to the vaccine mRNA indefinitely producing synthetic spike protein in the body).

This, in turn, was a result of needing to ensure the vaccine persisted long enough to produce sufficient spike protein to produce a vaccine immune response (and hence win an approval) but this being incredibly challenging to do (especially given the rushed nature of Operation Warp Speed and how many companies were racing to get the initial approval and the billions in profit that would follow). Consequently, developers prioritized maximizing the mRNA vaccine’s persistence and productivity, given its unpredictable behavior in the body and to accept that the injuries which followed from excessive spike production within the body were an acceptable price to pay for expediting the vaccine (hence illustrating why blanket liability shields, such as the ones given during Operation Warp Speed, are so problematic).

Immunologic Suppression and Viral Reactivation

One of the major problems with the COVID vaccine has been that it causes a significant number of people to develop signs of immune suppression, such as frequent flu infections or reactivation of chronic viral infections (e.g., shingles in general along with severe cases of shingles has been strongly linked to vaccination).
Note: less severe versions of this immune suppression have also been observed to follow shedding exposures.

A variety of theories have been put forward to explain why this happens, such as:

• The immune system being locked onto the vaccine antigen, which results in it losing the ability to target other natural antigens (and has been proven to be an issue with many other vaccines as well).

• The vaccine creating an IgG4 class switch, which essentially causes the immune system to no longer fight back against COVID spike proteins.

• The overstimulation of the vaccine over time causes a suppression of spike protein antibodies (which the study observed). This could either be a result of the vaccine-injured patients have an existing inability to develop immunity to the vaccine’s spike protein (as suggested by the January 2023 study) or that the vaccine gradually eliminated the body’s ability to bind to the spike protein, resulting in individuals becoming more vulnerable to the spike protein over time if they happened to have a long-acting vaccine continue to produce spike protein inside them.

• The spike protein collapsing the body’s zeta potential (which as it gets more severe can cause blood clots of increasing sizes). Since many symptoms of infectious illnesses result from the zeta potential collapse they create, those symptoms of illness are magnified when there is already an impaired zeta potential (which the spike protein has been shown to collapse).

• The spike protein directly destroying immune cells (e.g., CD4 cells—something also seen in HIV) and the stem cells that create the immune cells.

Note: these labs were sent to me by one vaccine-injured participant in the study.

In addition to showing a loss of key immune cells, the study also showed both the CD4 and CD8 cells had signs of being “exhausted,” as changes were observed in them that are known to correlate with those cells partially losing ability to respond to infections due to a chronic over-activation of them (e.g., by persistent vaccine spike protein).

Finally, much in the same way that there were signs of immune dysfunction, the study also observed consistent significant signs of viral reactivations in the cohort, most notably with Epstein Barr virus, but also with herpes and frequently both concurrently (however for some reason, shingles was not assessed in this study). In turn, we have frequently seen EBV be a component of the vaccine-injury picture (to the point sometimes it needs to be treated) and frequently also observe an increase in herpes.

Note: one of the best treatments I have found for all three of these viruses is ultraviolet blood irradiation (discussed here). Additionally, DMSO can be quite helpful for shingles and herpes (discussed here).

Additionally, there was also a possible increase in seropositivity to a few other pathogens (e.g., H. Pylori and the parasite Toxocara), which could potentially (but more likely than not doesn’t) explain some of the gastrointestinal issues seen in vaccine-injured patients or their response to ivermectin.

Autoimmunity

One of the most common issues associated with the COVID vaccines were autoimmune disorders (detailed here) due to the fact the spike protein had an unusually high overlap with human tissue and because it was designed to express itself on the surface of human cells. In this study, Yale’s team reported:

We observed significant increases in IgM reactivities against 65 antigens, IgG reactivity against 1 antigen and IgA reactivities against 39 antigens in PVS compared to controls after multiple testing corrections. Among these antigens, two showed log₂fold change of greater than 2: anti-nucleosome IgM [which is strongly associated with lupus] and anti-AQP4 IgA [which is associated with a rare autoimmune disorder that attacks the central nervous system, particularly optic nerve and spinal cord].

Note: a significant increase in TNF⍺ levels in simulated CD8+ cells (which can often lead to immune dysfunction) and a non-significant increase in CD8+ IFNγ were observed.

I feel these results are important as they validate something many of us have been claiming for four years with the vaccines.

Note: less severe versions of autoimmunity have also been observed to follow shedding exposures.

Read the Whole Article

The post Yale’s Censored Vaccine Injury Research and the Urgent Need for Scientific Reform appeared first on LewRockwell.

On a mid-April 2025 Saturday afternoon, I went to see a Princeton University baseball game. My brother’s son pitched for Princeton’s visitor, Brown. The weather was beautiful: clear, dry, sunny and in the low-70s.

I wore my black “I SURVIVED CORONAMANIA: UNMASKED, UNINJECTED, UNFRAID” t-shirt. Some Princeton fans in the 250-person crowd crinkled their noses at the shirt, though none made eye contact or said anything to me, even as I cheered conspicuously in their midst as my nephew struck out a bunch of Princeton guys.

He also did well this summer in Cape Cod’s College Baseball League. He throws hard and accurately, changes speeds and makes the ball move unpredictably. There’s talk that a Major League team will draft him next year.

In today’s hyper-specialized world, my nephew hasn’t batted in a game since his freshman year in high school. I liked to swing the bat. There’s nothing like it. The thrown ball comes in fast. There’s a fine line and a split-second between success and failure. If you succeed, you feel a pleasingly heavy sensation in your hands, hear a loud crack, and see a small, white sphere rapidly rise and move away from you. Human motion and verbal commotion follow immediately thereafter. A baseball hit delivers a serious dopamine hit. I wish pitchers would get a chance to swing the bat every once in a while. But I wish in vain for many things far more important than that.

—

On that April day, my wife, Ellen, and I sat, five rows behind the first-base dugout, alongside my brother and two of his erstwhile fraternity brothers from Virginia Commonwealth University. Over the decades, I had hung out several times with these amiable guys.

After the game, my brother’s wife, who was sitting with one of her New Jersey-based college friends, joined us after having spectated from lawn chairs along the right-field line. Being too close to the action can make a pitcher’s mother nervous.

My sister-in-law agrees with me about Coronamania. But when her friend saw my shirt, her friend read it aloud and asked what it meant. I answered, “It means the past five years were a complete overreaction.”

She immediately became agitated and said, “I disagree with you about everything. I was taking care of my 95-year-old mother.”

She didn’t claim that her mother died of, or even got, The Virus.

Not seeing her point, I asked, calmly, “Does that mean kids should have been kept out of school for 18 months?”

Before she could answer, my SIL de-escalated the exchange by stepping into the ten feet between us, waving her arms and saying, “OK, that’s enough! This is over!”

Though I’m willing to discuss the Scamdemic, at length, with anyone, I didn’t want to make this spontaneous debate the most memorable part of an otherwise enjoyable afternoon. So I didn’t press the issue. By suggesting the absence of a connection between the health of her 95-year-old mother and schoolkids living normal lives, I had already made my point to anyone within earshot who might have had an open mind.

—

The oft-heard, latter-day Scamdemic notions that “we know better now” and that “we won’t repeat this mistake” are deeply unsatisfying. These phrases confer no consolation. Vast, permanent, easily avoidable damage has been done.

Worse, many still think, as my SIL’s friend seemed to, that the theatrical overreaction and shots saved humanity. They display a distinct lack of knowledge and logic about what happened. And they’ve never considered the Scamdemic’s impact on the larger society, not only while the lockdowns, etc. were happening but also in the future.

They have tunnel vision because their TV and internet news sources repeated too many slogans and displayed too many death tickers and graphs presenting fake data. They repeatedly saw and believed videos of morgue trucks, people hooked to ventilators and Chinese guys collapsing in the street. They had also been well-propagandized in advance. They had seen sci-fi movies about contagions and knew the words “Ebola” and “Spanish Flu,” though they couldn’t tell you much about either of these. Besides, in Spring 2020, their work colleague’s wife’s grandmother’s 94-year-old’s friend with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home was killed by The Virus. Or so they had heard.

As during the truncated post-game exchange above, the Coronamanic never had to defend their support for the lockdowns, masks, tests and shots by answering a few basic questions that would have exposed the illogic of it all.

—

This misinformed group includes many Princeton grads and graduates of many other colleges, including the private college where my SIL met her friend. During 2020-21, Princeton displayed Styrofoam placards on the main quad with the names of a few dozen—out of over 100,000 living—alumni who purportedly died of Covid. As Ivy colleges like to add the class year after alums’ names—it’s another old-school-tie signifier—I couldn’t help but notice that the ostensible viral victims had graduated many decades earlier; more “with, not from” deaths. But the privileged progressives who run that institution couldn’t pass up an opportunity to simultaneously claim victimhood and exhibit demagoguery. As throughout the Scamdemic, the subtext was, “Last month it was them. Next month, it might be you.”

Uh, maybe…if you were over 80, diabetic and on statins. But even then, highly unlikely.

When I saw these placards, I suspected that Princeton had never similarly memorialized the far more numerous alums who had died of either pneumonia, dementia or alcoholism or had committed suicide. Somehow, those deaths didn’t have the same cachet.

Princeton also barred unvaxxed, unmasked people like me from attending a hockey game from 2021-2023 and has welcomed speakers like Tony Fauci and Francis Collins, both of whom put the Scam in Scamdemic, aggressively sought to marginalize anti-lockdown truth-tellers and inaccurately assured the public that the vaxxes “would stop infection and spread.” I suspect it has paid these individuals big honoraria for their blather. But the internet and the University are conspicuously coy about such indelicate details.

—

One of my brother’s two game-attending friends creates colorful paintings for a living. I very much like the ones I’ve seen. When he saw my shirt, he politely asked me why I hadn’t taken the shots. I said that the virus never frightened me, the shots had no long-term safety record and I didn’t want to contribute to the phony narrative that some injection had saved the human race from the worst Plague since the 1300s.

When I asked if he’d taken the shot, I thought that, as an artist, he might have had an independent streak and declined it. Instead, he said he had injected. He shrugged and explained, casually, “I just thought it was something we were supposed to do.”

I found his explanation interesting. I wondered what the term “supposed to do” meant and about the nonchalant way he said it.

The dictionary defines “suppose” as “presuming something is true without certain knowledge.” The phrase, “what we were supposed to do,” adds a second layer of passivity. It connotes that one isn’t just making his own presumption, he’s fulfilling others’ expectations by implicitly adopting the presumptions that underlie those expectations.

When I heard the artist’s jab justification, it felt as if he was lumping the inoculations in with such innocuous behaviors as showing up on-time, saying “Thank you” when someone does you a favor, spending holidays with your in-laws or bussing your table at Chipotle. People do these things because that’s what’s expected of them.

Most who fulfill others’ expectations may not think much about why they do so. Those who do think about what they’re supposed to do might take a broader, practical view of their conduct. Upon reflection, they may have concluded that consensus and conformity make for a more harmonious, better society. Though, depending on what conduct is expected, going along to get along can facilitate profound damage. See, e.g., the past five-and-a-half years.

Doing what one is “supposed to do” connotes undue deference or obedience. It’s like being back in grade school, standing in a line and doing what your linemates do. It’s behaviorally tautological: I do it because I’m supposed to do it. It was like drinking Kool-Aid.

Injecting because that’s what one was “supposed to do” also implies that those who jabbed served the public. From the Scamdemic’s beginning, governments cynically exploited naive, misplaced altruism.

Taking shots because one thinks that one is supposed to do so also reflects the dubious bias that medical interventions are generally worthwhile, rather than a profit opportunity for the physician or the corporation that employs them or makes a given drug or device. It turned out that medical systems gave bonuses to doctors who convinced enough people to inject.

Read the Whole Article

The post Princeton, Coronamania and Doing What You’re Supposed To Do appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump recently made a strikingly personal comment:

I want to try and get to heaven if possible. I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I hear I’m really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to Heaven, this will be one of the reasons.

By “this” he was referring to his diplomatic work toward peace agreements.

Indeed, Trump has played a major role in brokering recent peace deals in troubled regions—between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and India and Pakistan. He has also sought to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. The question arises: Can such incredible work bring a man to Heaven?

Ultimately, the answer of Heaven must not begin with political leaders, nor with humanitarian accomplishments, but with Jesus Christ Himself. Our Lord declared in the Gospel of John: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Salvation is not attained through human achievement, however noble, but through Christ, who is the only Savior of mankind.

St. Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). A person might be praised for diplomacy, philanthropy, or inventions that change the world, but none of those things can substitute for the grace of God that alone redeems us.

When Jesus revealed Himself as the Way to the Father, He also established a Church that would safeguard and proclaim that truth until the end of time. In Matthew’s Gospel, He said to Simon: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). This Church is not a mere human institution or voluntary association. It is the Bride of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ, divinely instituted and guided by the Holy Spirit. Through her, the graces of Christ’s death and Resurrection are communicated to the world.

The necessity of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Second Vatican Council in the document Lumen Gentium:

This pilgrim church is necessary for salvation…Those cannot be saved who refuse to enter the church or remain in it, if they are aware that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ as a necessity for salvation.” (Art. 14)

The same Council also acknowledged that God’s mercy extends to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church but sincerely seek the truth and strive to do His will (see Art. 16).

Pope Pius IX expressed this principle already in the 19th century when he wrote that those who are “invincibly ignorant” of the Catholic Faith but still live uprightly may, by God’s grace, be saved. Still, for those who have been given knowledge of the truth, the obligation is serious.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church rejects the idea that salvation is attained by “faith alone” or “works alone.” Instead, as St. Paul teaches, “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation comes by grace, received in faith, which then produces works of love. St. James reminds us that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17). St. Thomas Aquinas explained that faith is the root, charity the form, and good works the fruit of salvation: “Faith without charity is not true faith, but a lifeless faith.”

The ordinary means by which Christ communicates His grace are the sacraments. Baptism is the beginning of the Christian life: “No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). St. Peter affirms with clarity: “Baptism saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). The Eucharist is the supreme gift that sustains the soul: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Confession, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick are, likewise, channels of sanctifying grace, drawing the believer deeper into the life of Christ.

At the same time, Christ demands more than a nominal faith or occasional ritual. He calls His disciples to do the will of the Father: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). St. John Chrysostom cautioned his flock: “It is not enough to bear the name of Christian, but we must also live the life of Christians.” For this reason, the saints constantly remind us that salvation is a lifelong journey of cooperation with God’s grace.

It is in this light that one must consider Trump’s question about Heaven. Can brokering peace among nations win a soul eternal life? On a natural level, such work is admirable and praiseworthy. Bringing enemies to reconciliation, preventing bloodshed, and promoting the common good are indeed good works, and they align with the Christian call to be peacemakers. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). Pope Benedict XV, who reigned during the First World War, wrote: “Nothing is more conformable to the office of Christ than to bring peace to men; therefore, nothing is more proper to Christians than to cultivate peace.” Peacemaking is a real participation in Christ’s work.

But while peacemaking is a sign of the Gospel at work in the world, it does not in itself open the gates of Heaven. Salvation is not earned like a political victory; it is a gift, received in humility. The Church reminds us soberly that no matter who we are, we must all face judgment: “It is appointed to a man to die once, and then the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). At that moment, neither political power nor worldly achievements will matter. What will matter is whether one has known Christ, lived in His grace, and loved God and neighbor. As St. John of the Cross said, “In the evening of life, we will be judged on love alone.”

Therefore, while Trump’s efforts for peace are to be commended, they will not in themselves determine his eternal destiny. A good reminder for him, and for all of us, is to remain close to Jesus, to His Catholic Church, and to the sacraments that nourish us with grace. For the path to Heaven is not through international treaties or human acclaim but through the narrow way of the cross, walked in faith and sustained by God’s mercy.

Ultimately, any judgment of Heaven comes from God alone. May our prayer for the president (and ourselves!) be that we all confess a love of Jesus Christ like St. Peter—“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”—live as a faithful disciple, and receive the mercy of Christ poured out in His Church. The invitation stands before each of us, presidents and ordinary men alike: “Follow me.”

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Can World Peace Get Donald Trump Into Heaven? appeared first on LewRockwell.

There was hope among Trump watchers that, as President, he would not seek war.  He would put America first, bring troops home, and strengthen the US through economic liberty and even – wait for it – sound money!  The most cynical never believed it; Trump haters in both parties didn’t want it, but there is no doubt he lied to the MAGA crowd over and over again.  American First got Donald “war hero” Trump, as he claps for that king of war heroes, Bibi Netanyahu.

Part of the problem is academic.  The US is an imperial nation, late and deep in its financial, military and demographic collapse.  But to admit this is to get ahead of ourselves as Americans. Imperialism as a concept is a legacy of ancient Rome, pre-enlightenment Europe, Marxist and Leninist language we read about somewhere and it wasn’t us.  MAGA voters and most other Americans have been reluctant to use the term, and that’s understandable.

Americans have been habituated to believe we are just spreading good government around the world, and that we don’t profit from the empire. 55% of Americans today were ten or younger when Nixon unleashed money-printing and took the US off the Gold Standard.  Most of us have known nothing but unconstrained US fiat manufacture and annual inflation far higher than the government admits.  We all accept as normal what was once unimaginable:  the massive and immeasurable depredation of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that has occurred because of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

What we need is peace and a real republic; to get there we need a better explanation of the philosophy of American foreign policy. For years I thought neoconservatism explained a lot, but that label is really just a play on neoliberalism on one end, and a placeholder for Israel First in all things, foreign and domestic, on the other. Neither of these labels is useful to the average American, and beyond that, they are divisive, arrogant and off-putting depending on where you sit on the spectrum of demographics and politics.  We have seen the term isolationism similarly used, not to explain a preferred approach to dealing with the world, but to politically divide and conquer.  Realism and its variants sound good, if you are over 60, but it is quite vague in a practical sense as to what is allowed.  As we were told in the Melian Dialogue, “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”  Realism is Gaza for the past two years, and Palestine since 1948. Realism is an American elite and military consortium that has the power to make permanent war for profit while 95% of America begs for peace.

Trump is a blessing of sorts, because he is the blurter-in-chief; he says the quiet part out loud, as so many have observed. This helps educate American, and we need that education.  Word salads from the incoherent Kamala Harris, or another endless weekend with Biden, would have failed to provide this necessary education for the precious generations who will receive what’s left after American imperialism retracts, condenses, collapses, and is finally abandoned.

The American government seeks war for the sake of war.  Not conquest, not expansion of territory, not actual ownership of assets classes like oil or minerals or water, but rather control at the margins for enrichment of the governing class. It is a pirate’s code, without the fiscal conservatism and wise risk management of a real pirate.  It is neo-Vikingism, without the erudition or the ability to induce great fear and trembling. It is George III’s “seventy years of war” driven by high taxes, debt and endless war.  It is war for the sake of business, and the business is war.

US “foreign policy” follows a simple rule:  No war may be ended without a new one of equal or greater value being initiated.

The Cold War, which was really a series of hot “little wars” everywhere, suddenly collapsed in 1989. The prevailing “war for the purpose of war” crowd on left and right in Washington was unprepared.  Whatever could it do?  Well, they did this: The American George I invaded Iraq – starting a long war in the Middle East that has yet to end; his Arkansan successor served the cause in expanding NATO and conducting the inconceivably monikered Humanitarian War in the former Yugoslavia; George II oversaw a massive increase in war globally –  creating Israel’s necessary regional disruptions and a permanent global war on “terra”; Obama’s malleable continuation the above, then Trump’s first term where the unprofitable Afghanistan war was ended even as Trump eyed new regional conflicts and set the stage for more NATO expansion. Afghanistan was a two decade war that would never have happened except for CIA and western central bank dependence on opium money, and Israel’s need for the destruction of “seven countries in seven years.” That war was made pointless – not because the Taliban had outlasted US and NATO expeditionary forces – but because fentanyl and other cheap opioids, and aging boomers now on Medicare, had already removed the profit from that war. Biden’s sloppy withdrawal from Kabul was possible and predictable, only because of another long-brewing NATO war against Russia, this time in Ukraine.

This brings us to Trump 2.0, associated with military claims to Greenland and the Arctic, NATO expansion to the Pacific, airtight Netanyahoo-ism with billions more to Israel this year, a courtesy billion dollar overnight US attack on Iran, air superiority exercised over Mexico, and a pending invasion of Venezuela.  Oh, and 6 “new” peace deals in 6 months.  The 7th, planned for Ukraine, is being ended on the battlefield by Russia, but the pattern remains – no US war “investment” ends without a new investment in war to ensure continuity of the US banking, industrial, and pro-Zionist war-class. The framework can seamlessly interchange a global war on terror with a global war on any and all who reject the purchase-power deadweight of the US dollar.  This war is evenly applied to BRICS, or to average young Americans who’d like to buy a brick house someday.

The Mises Wire published an incredibly timely piece by Joseph Solis-Mullen reminding us of Charles Beard’s proposals for a wise US foreign policy – and reminding us of libertarian realism, that correctly views all foreign policy as “essentially a function of domestic policy.”

It features David Gordon’s talk on Beard’s foreign policy at a recent Mises Institute conference, and re-introduces the idea of continentalism as an ideal foreign policy.

How strange it is that Trump’s America First-ism echoes Beard’s continentalism, with common sense ideas for seeking American peace and prosperity, and yet how absolutely impossible it is for Trump, or anyone else to shift, shape or end DC’s “Devil Theory of War.”

We have inherited a US foreign policy – and an explicit domestic policy – of war for the sake and profit of war industries, central banks, and ruling elites.

Fighting men from Smedley Butler to Dwight Eisenhower to JFK to Tony Agular, and millions in between have seen it clearly for exactly what it is – and they have told us honestly.  Americans today have all we need to end the cycle, and I believe we are on the cusp of permanently burying this foreign and domestic policy of destruction and deprivation.  Turn away from Washington, withdraw your consent to the state, and grab a shovel!

The post US Foreign Policy Is War for More War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Foreign Aid is unconstitutional and Criminal because there is no Enumerated Power authorizing it in the Supreme Law ofthe Land, our Constitution. Foreign Aid promotes and supports Wars, Bribes, Kickbacks, Revolutions, and generates worldwide hatred of America. The most important fact is that the money required to “help” other nations  is borrowed and stolen from Americans, contributing to crumbling infrastructure and people living in the streets.

Some proponents argue that government has the power to spend for the common good and the general welfare. The Necessary and Proper Clause is also used to support Foreign Aid. I think these contentions are just to justify ignoring the more powerful and specific Enumerated Powers.

The simple truth is that government expenditures exceed income by 50%, and it is downright criminal to spend money on Foreign Aid when it must be borrowed and our own countrymen are in dire need.

In simple terms, Foreign Aid is mostly Evil; a large percentage is for bribes of foreign leaders and kickbacks to our bureaucrats and officials. Let us not forget the profits on goods purchased with Foreign Aid money goes thru corporations to the Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC), which in turn pays off Congressmen for their favorable votes. The FBI’s failure to investigate, charge and convict criminals in government is the single most important reason that more than half of Federal Government is an unlawful Criminal Enterprise, while our people suffer.

The American Dream of home ownership on a single income is impossible for averageAmericans, and even two incomes is not possible until later in life. This has reduced the birth rate and moved it to later in life, with all kinds of negative implications for the Economy and living standards for the people.

Foreign Aid is not only a drain on our standard of living, rife with all manner of criminality, but it makes us enemies all over the world. The DOGE investigation uncovered comprehensive fraud, waste and abuse in USAID, requiring that it be terminated.

Total regular Foreign Aid in 2024 was $63.3 Billion. Israel received $298 Billion between 1946 and 2024. We guarantee Israel $3.3 Billion a year. We also gave Israel $17.9 Billion for war in Gaza. We spent $9.2 Billion on Humanitarian aid to Gaza. We spent $4.86 Billion for our military in the region. We spent a total of $329.96 billion on Israel since its founding in 1948. Let that sink in. What question first comes to your mind

We spent $195 Billion in Ukraine, $20 Billion of which was a loan, never to be repaid. It is a joke in Europe that the only people spending money in Europe are Ukrainians.

Government deliberately and drastically lowered the standard of living of our own people to benefit our Military Industrial Complex of the PSRRC. In the process, we earned the hatred of the people in most countries. Foreign Aid is a lose-lose proposition for the American people.

For example, if you study the history of only Ukraine and Israel, you will learn two things. One, that we were mostly responsible for the Ukraine war, and “news” was mostly lies. Two, that both sides in the  Israel conflict have good reason to hate each other thru eternity, and we have no business being involved.

We should withdraw our military completely from everywhere in the world. We can’t be invaded by anyone, we can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction or from within by the Communist/Democrat army of 21 million illegals.

No country in the world can assist “Alliances” are defined as “Mutual Assistance”, and we need no such. Our “assistance” is one-way. It is interesting to research “foreign relations” relating to alliances, quasi-alliances, and partnerships to better define the lop-sided relations of the US with Israel, and understand the degree of control that Israel has over the US pocketbook. You will scream “Treason”!

In short, we have no business interfering with other countries; we can’t afford it. Israel is a special case because it is common knowledge that the Jewish lobby controls our government and the media. We have been in almost constant war in the region on behalf of Israel, at great cost in money and lives. We can’t afford allies like this, right or wrong; we must allow them to wage all the wars they want at their own expense.

We must end all foreign aid and bring our troops home so America can prosper. I will say again, there is no logic or reason for sending troops or money overseas. We need all of our military and more, here in America to defend against and deport Democrat/Communist army of 21 million illegals.

The post It Is Criminal for Congress to Spend Money We Don’t Have on Unlawful Foreign Aid. appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you thought that Donald Trump had learned the importance of keeping politics out of intelligence in light of how the intelligence community was used as a tool to attack and subvert his Presidency, think again.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired a general whose agency’s initial intelligence assessment of U.S. damage to Iranian nuclear sites angered President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the decision and a White House official.

Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse will no longer serve as head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the people, who spoke Friday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. . . .

Kruse’s firing comes two months after details of a preliminary assessment of U.S. airstrikes against Iran leaked to the media. It found that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months by the military effort, contradicting assertions from Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Republican president, who had pronounced the Iranian program “completely and fully obliterated,” rejected the report.

While this is a different kind of interference — i.e., rejecting the judgment of intelligence analysts because they do not parrot the administration line — from that employed by the Biden administration — i.e., fabricating intelligence, such as Russian casualty figures, in order to placate the government policy — both are dangerous.

There was a previous high-profile case… Mike Collins was fired in May 2025 by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from his position as acting head of the National Intelligence Council (aka NIC). One of the NIC‘s primary duties is the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Collins firing occurred shortly after the NIC published an assessment that contradicted claims made by the Trump administration regarding the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which weakened a justification used by Trump to exercise wartime powers.

It is not clear if the NIE conclusion discounting the connection between Tren de Aragua and Venezuelan President Maduro was the primary reason to dismiss Collins. According to media reports in May, Collins’ firing was part of a move to address what the office of the DNI described as the “weaponization” and politicization of intelligence. Along with Collins, his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, was also dismissed. Gabbard relocated the council from its CIA office to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) facilities, a change aligned with the ostensible aim to prevent politicization of intelligence.

Collins was suspect because of his ties to Michael Morell, a former CIA deputy director, who helped Hillary Clinton cover up the disaster at Benghazi, and who signed the letter from 51 intelligence professionals that questioned the legitimacy of Hunter Biden’s laptop, asserting that it appeared to be Russian disinformation. Collins was also facing whistleblower allegations accusing him of political bias and deliberately undermining the incoming Trump administration.

The US intelligence community, particularly the CIA and the DNI, shares a major portion of the blame for behaving as political partisans rather than as intelligence professionals. Tulsi Gabbard’s release of documents, emails and testimony from whistleblowers surrounding the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, provided irrefutable evidence that partisan politics by the CIA’s Brennan and the DNI’s Clapper took precedence over the facts surrounding the issue of Russian interference.

As was the case with Biden, Trump appears to be engaging in the same sort of partisan pressure on analysts to support his administration’s policies regardless of what the human and signals intelligence shows. In the case of General Kruse, the firing sends a chilling message to the DIA analysts — i.e., even if they have evidence that Iran’s nuclear program was not obliterated, you may be fired if you challenge the President’s opinion. The US intelligence community, in my opinion, no longer has any credibility. It has become a full-time creature of politics.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Is Trump, Like Biden, Politicizing Intelligence? appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Thursday’s episode of the Peter Schiff Show, Peter (joined by a special guest, Schiff Sovereign’s James Hickman) argues that the federal budget is no longer driven by programs so much as by the mounting costs of debt maintenance. The duo covers the headline $37 trillion public debt, how interest has become a mandatory line item that crowds out everything else, and why the Federal Reserve’s interventions risk turning mounting deficits into accelerating inflation — all reasons, they say, to be ever-skeptical of fiat money.

James starts by laying out the raw numbers and why they matter for everyday policy decisions:

Look, I’ve been writing about this for a while. I’ve been talking about this for a while. The United States just recently hit $37 trillion in debt. And that’s just the nominal public debt that doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities and all the other things, the Social Security shortfall, the Medicare shortfall, all the other things—just the gross nominal public debt, $37 trillion. More importantly, the spending, the gross interest cost this fiscal year alone, which is going to end at the end of next month, September 30, 2025, is going to come in at about $1.2 trillion.

He pushes back on the familiar reassurance that “we owe it to ourselves” and explains who actually holds Treasury debt:

Now don’t let people fool you. There’s a Jedi mind trick that people play sometimes with the national debt and they go, “Oh, well, we owe it to ourselves,” which is the biggest BS line ever that somebody could say about the US national debt. What they mean by that, when they say we owe it to ourselves, out of that $37 trillion there’s a lot of that that’s owed to foreign investors, you know, the Chinese and Japanese, and so forth. There’s a lot of that that is owed to US banks, money market funds, some mutual funds, hedge funds, et cetera. And yeah, there is some of that that is owed to military retirement, to the Federal Reserve. Social Security trust funds own a lot of US government debt.

Interest and entitlements now claim nearly all tax revenue, leaving discretionary spending to be financed by new borrowing:

So the bottom line is they’re spending $1.2 trillion this fiscal year that constitutes about 22% of all federal tax revenue. Every dollar they spend, 22 cents of that’s going out the door just to pay interest on the national debt. Then they pay Social Security, then they pay Medicare and the other mandatory entitlement spending; basically the mandatory entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt last year consumed all of tax revenue. So everything else that’s known as discretionary spending, which includes the military, Homeland Security, national parks, the light bill at the White House, all those things had to be funded with more debt.

In light of a bizarre recent Fed resignation and investigations into FOMC members, Peter speculates this is a politically-motivated attempt to pressure the Fed into easier money policy:

Obviously if they found that this voting Fed member– the FOMC– committed mortgage fraud– it was because they were investigating the people on the FOMC trying to find dirt on them! … The two that voted to cut rates last time are probably fine. They’re not looking at those guys. So all the Fed officials that didn’t vote to cut rates– I bet the IRS is looking over all their tax returns, you know, you’ve got FHA looking over all their mortgage applications. … How do I get off of the naughty list on to the nice list? I’m voting in September for a rate cut.

Peter concludes that the goal here, as always, is to unleash the money printer for political purposes:

The counterbalance to aggressive deficit spending is, well, interest rates could go up and undermine what I’m trying to do. But if you know that, “No I don’t have to worry about these big deficits pushing up interest rates because we control the central bank, and we’re just going to print money and buy up all the bonds we’re selling,” now you’ve basically turned over the press to the government, and now they’re going to just use it, just like in Zimbabwe.

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post Interest Payments Are Devouring the Budget appeared first on LewRockwell.

FBI Raids Home of Trump’s First Term National Security Adviser John Bolton. Bolton was not detained, but is expected to be charged

Generally speaking, democracies die from corruption. The United States is no exception.  America has always suffered from corrupt government at every level.  Liberals who put unwarranted trust in government, especially at the federal level, have long been in denial about this fact.  Liberals tend to see corruption in state and local governments, especially Southern ones.  They see federal government intervention as the correction.

Liberals know, or once did, of the corruption of President Grant’s government.  They know of President Lincoln’s disregard of the US constitution.  But liberals still see the federal government as a corrective force.

The federal government is no more safe from being hijacked by interest groups than state and local governments.  Essentially, governments are agencies that influential private interests use to feather their own nest at the expense of others.  The reason is that the President, and the members of the House and Senate obtain office courtesy of those private interests that provide their campaign funds.  Therefore, it is the monied interests that government serves.

Somehow the notion of a “public interest” has survived the many decades of contrary evidence.

Over the course of my life I have noticed a quantitative/qualitative change in the power of private interests.  Formerly they used the law to get what they want.  Today they weaponize law in order to remove those in their way.

The use of law as a weapon to control policy perhaps dates from the Nixon era.  President Nixon was making arms control agreements with the Soviets and opened to China.  The military/security interests did not want to lose the communist enemy that enhanced their profits, and they went to work on Nixon.  Growing suspicions about the assassination of President Kennedy foreclosed the physical assassination of Nixon, so they assassinated him politically with the Watergate orchestration.  The bullet that hit President Reagan did not kill him, and the official narrative was accepted.  Nevertheless, the CIA was opposed to Reagan’s idea of negotiating the end of the Cold War with the Kremlin.  I know, because I was on a secret presidential committee to investigate the validity of the CIA’s opposition.

Whenever its origin, weaponized law in the US has been manifested in the 21st century.  George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neoconservatives gave us 9/11 and a quarter century of war in the Middle East resulting in the destruction of 6 countries and millions of displaced persons who fled to the West and destabilized European countries and the UK.

To facilitate the profits, budgets, and influence of the military/security complex, American civil liberties protected by the Constitution were erased by laws deemed necessary in order to protect us from an alleged “terrorism,” which was itself an orchestration.  

But all of this was foreplay.  Democrat opposition to Trump’s election in 2016, and Trump’s intention to “normalize relations with Russia,” weaponized not only the Democrats and whore media against him, but also the CIA, Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI.  US intelligence agencies falsified documents, lied to the FISA court and to Congress, and loaded the presstitutes with anti-Trump propaganda in order to hamstring, if not remove, a president deemed dangerous to the enormous profits that flowed from America having the Russian enemy.

The “Russian Enemy” is very important to many pocketbooks.  Trump is trying, or so it seems, to get rid of the Russian enemy for us, by passing the task of the Ukrainian conflict on to Europe which will purchase US weapons to continue the conflict. This way we are free of the conflict, but the profit interests of the military-security complex are not threatened,

Now for John Bolton.  Bolton is a neoconservative.  Perhaps he just wants, as do other Americans, for the US to be the unquestioned power in the world.  Perhaps he thinks that we are really threatened by the enemies we chose to make.  Perhaps he takes bribes in behalf of Greater Israel and/or the military/security complex .  I don’t know.

What I do know is that when a former National Security Adviser’s home and office are raided by the FBI who carry off his files, whether or not the raids are justified, the image of the United States suffers, just as eight years of false charges against Trump and the FBI raid on Trump’s home damaged the image of the United States.  Once law is weaponized, the prospect is created of weaponized law becoming institutionalized.  Additionally, the authority of high government positions is undermined by the positions being tainted with impropriety.  If the CIA director dispenses with presidents and the FBI chief lies to Congress, trust in the agencies disappears.

The Biden regime persecuted not only Trump but also his attorneys, appointees, and those who presented evidence of election theft.  Trump, a former president, faced four criminal indictments in weaponized courts with weaponized charges presented by weaponized attorney generals, one of whom, a George Soros protege,  currently faces indictment on the same charge she framed Trump with.

Once law is weaponized, it is a life and death matter who controls the government.  A government in such turmoil can never serve the public’s interest.

What goes around comes around.  John Bolton brought it on himself.  Bolton, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and Merrick Garland are likely guilty of crimes, whereas Trump, his attorneys and supporters are likely not guilty. But whatever Bolton and the others suffer, so does the image of the United States.  The use of high office for personal agendas separates the interests of government from the interest of the people and kills democracy. The image portrayed is one of a government  serving foreign, material, and ideological interests, not the interests of the voters who elected the government.

Everywhere in the Western World democracy is in crisis and collapse. Democracy has become so dysfunctional that executive authority is superseding it.  

When democracy fails, the choice becomes revolution or a Caesar.

The post Revolution or a Caesar? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

Common Dreams

The post Global Food Authority Declares Famine in Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

I looked up what -40C is in Fahrenheit. It’s -40F, the same. I’ve been in -37F temps in South Dakota. There was no wind that sunny day. The sky was so blue, it looked black. I could almost see outer space. My toes are still numb.

The post Ice Pilots: Water Bombers to Europe: -40c in Yellowknife, NWT appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dear Lew, 

As you know, the Gaza crisis is intensifying, and many LRC readers may want to press their elected represenatives to end their support for Israel’s wars and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

I am reforwarding to you below and in the attachment a sample letter or email that LRC readers could send to President Trump and VP Vance and/or their US Senators and Representatives asking them to end US support for Israel.

Thank you very much for considering publishing this sample letter on LRC. 

With much appreciation for all you do.

MO

SAMPLE LETTER TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS

Re: Please stop supporting Israel’s wars and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians

Dear [President Trump and Vice President Vance] [Senator___] [Representative___],

We are [Republicans] [independent voters] [Democrats] who support much of your agenda. But you are increasingly losing us by placing Israel’s interests over US interests.

We strongly object to sending US money and arms to Israel for its endless wars. US priorities should instead highlight US interests such as advancing peace and free trade, ending foreign aid, cutting defense spending, and cutting inflation and consumer costs.

Israel’s government has long pursued controversial ultra-Zionist policies asserting that Jews have the ethnic privilege to violently cleanse “Greater Israel” of Muslims and Christians who have lived there for centuries. It is not “anti-semitic” to question Israel’s government or its policies. Many Israelis and US Jews strongly disagree with Zionism.

Ultra-Zionist leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu have long manipulated the US to support ill-advised wars for Israel including in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. In June 2025, Israel attacked Iran to sabotage US peace talks, and demanded that the US bomb Iran.

Most alarmingly, since 2024, Israel has bombed, shot, and starved to death over 62,000 civilians in Palestinian-occupied Gaza, including over 18,500 children killed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2025/israel-gaza-war-children-death-toll/ Israel is launching a new assault to attack Gaza City and more Palestinians.

Many countries have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. 170 nations just voted to support Palestinian self-determination, with only six opposed including, sadly, the US. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/the-right-of-the-palestinian-people-to-self-determination-08nov24/

Over 60% of Americans now disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza; only 32% approve. https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-military-action-gaza-new-low.aspx

Israel is “losing Republican support by the day” as young conservatives, non-interventionists, Christians, and other MAGA human rights supporters call out Israel’s atrocities. https://www.timesofisrael.com/losing-republicans-by-the-day-support-for-israel-slipping-among-trumps-base/

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that Israel “is committing genocide” in Gaza, and that American officials should “support only American interests.”

Where do you stand on this issue? It is not sufficient to shrug it off, recite mantras for looking the other way such as ”Israel has the right to defend itself,” and vote to send money and arms to kill civilians while collecting AIPAC donations for reelection funds.

We don’t support Israel’s violence, and can’t support you if you put Israel first. Please [tell your colleagues and President Trump to] demand that Israel end its wars on Palestinians now. If it balks, please cut off all US grants of money and weapons to Israel.

Thank you.

Email and postal adresses for Trump administration and Congress are available at:  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ 

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative 

The post Sample Letter to Elected Representatives about Gaza Crisis appeared first on LewRockwell.

Historical verisimilitude does not seem to concern Hollywood writers these days. Not that it ever did. Blatant misrepresentations in the movies are far too many to list here. The bloodthirsty George Custer was portrayed by an almost angelic-looking Errol Flynn in They Died With Their Boots On, while the desperate and homely Dutch hooker Mata Hari—guillotined by the cowardly French as a German spy—was embodied by Greta Garbo in all the thespian’s magnificence.

Never mind. Movies are supposed to take us into a dreamworld, or a nightmare one, hence the historical falsifications. I no longer go to movie houses because of the ill-mannered audiences. People talk, eat loudly, smoke pot, pass wind, and act as if they’re at home. In my home I do not watch films that deal with science fiction, aliens, horror, or African-Americans being mistreated by white Southerners. I only watch old black-and-white films with intelligent plots, witty dialogue, and actors who speak proper English and do not mumble. Again, there are too many of the above to list here, starting with The Best Years of Our Lives; John Wayne, Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, and William Holden films; not to mention the great Gone With the Wind.

“California and Hollywood are proof that very bad things can happen unless one is vigilant.”

There, now you have it. Recently, however, a friend pointed out that modern Hollywood now casts black actors in period dramas of past centuries. In other words—and I’m making this up because I have not seen such trash—you can see, for example, Mark Antony as a black man addressing the Romans in the “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” funeral oration. Or you may now watch a black Henry V exhorting his troops at Agincourt against the French knights. Finally, I think a black Rhett Butler and an even blacker Scarlett O’Hara would draw applause, especially when she shoots that dirty white Yankee would-be rapist in the face. (Butterfly McQueen would be magnificent as played by Lindsay Lohan, and Big Tom by Arnold Schwarzenegger.)

Again, never mind. What Hollywood types have to be careful about is not historical accuracy but TV antennas, solar panels, double-parking lines, and such while shooting historical epics. What these modern Shylocks wish to tell us is that blacks are far more likely to watch their trash, and all-white period dramas should soon be extinct. And they now can take all the liberties their greedy souls wish. This is no Austen-land; anything goes. Just imagine, you can now see the great Benedict Arnold landing in Saratoga in a Chinook chopper, or better yet the heroic Nathan Hale loosening his Brooks Brothers shirt before the noose. Last but not least, the great George Washington crossing the Delaware in a cigarette fast boat with a Bertram V8 hull. What joy, and how the moola will roll in from the ads for the mod technology that helped us win our independence. And don’t forget, as historical verisimilitude no longer matters, you can always cast Eddie Murphy as Robert E. Lee, finally ridiculing the greatest of all Americans. Our modern Cecil B. DeMilles’ message is exhortatory: No matter how famous and great a historical fact, character, or novel, they can change it to suit today’s minorities.

But let’s face it: The real problem in America is California, because one of California’s main products dominates American culture. Yes, you guessed it, it’s Hollywood, and Silicon Valley doesn’t even come close as far as influencing how Americans see themselves, their lives, and their country. Once upon a time, before young, left-wing, bald whippersnappers who can read a balance sheet backwards took over, ugly, bald, uneducated Jewish refugees from Europe made wonderful pro-American movies that made the masses proud. The whippersnappers have since managed to turn the industry into one that shows America at its worst with every picture Tinseltown produces.

But there is good news. The film industry that is based in Hollywood has been hijacked by Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and other Southern states whose production costs are far lower than the ones in California. Once upon a time California was the closest thing to paradise. Then, however slowly, the Golden State turned into the inferno of today, with the largest homeless population in America, the worst schools, the highest crime, the highest taxes, the largest open-air drug dens, and the largest criminal gang membership. Nine million Californians voted for Kamala, 6 million for The Donald. You do the math. California can be saved only if 9 million dickheads are moved to places unknown: like outer Siberia, although I like those nice Siberian folks, especially the women, and they don’t deserve to be invaded by 9 million jerks from sunny El-Lay.

California and Hollywood are proof that very bad things can happen unless one is vigilant. The state was once a glorious place for sport, love, business, life, everything. It is now a hellhole full of gangs and criminals and untalented greedy Hollywood types. Stay away and keep watching black-and-white flicks.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Golden State Hate appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lindsey Graham says God will ‘curse’ US if it stops supporting Israel.

The above is the title of a news article. Here are excerpts:

Prominent US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has denied that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and said that God will curse the US if they pull their support for Tel Aviv.

At a South Carolina Republican Party meeting on Wednesday, Graham said: “If America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us”.

He went on to state: “Israel is not the bad guys. They’re the good guys. The bad guys are the radical Islamists who would kill everybody in this room if they could”.

The comments come amid Israel’s ongoing starvation of Gaza and its indiscriminate war on the territory, which kills scores of people every day.

The 22 month war has caused an unprecedented humanitarian crisis and soaring malnutrition rates due to Israel preventing the entry of aid.

The war has been determined to be a genocide by leading rights groups, including Amnesty International.

The controversial remarks were met with fierce backlash, particularly by fellow Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene.

She hit out further, writing: “I am also completely amazed that Israel and their aligned groups like AIPAC (who is breaking the law by not registering under FARA) takes Members of Congress, and Conservative social media influencers (like TPUSA) on all expenses paid trips to Israel, and welcomes a steady stream of conservative media outlets in order to keep the funding stream going”.

She further raised awareness on Israel’s ongoing starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, where over 239 people have died as a result of malnutrition.

“Funding and blindly supporting an ally who is starving children is not going to bring God’s favour on America, as a matter of fact, I’ll argue it will instead bring God’s wrath,” Greene wrote.

Congresswoman Greene is 100% correct.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is regurgitating the Christian Zionist mantra that is an egregiously mangled interpretation of Genesis 12:3 that “God will ‘bless’ America if America blesses the State of Israel, and He will curse America if we don’t bless Israel, because all nations are ‘blessed’ by blessing Zionist Israel,” idiotically equating God’s promise to the righteous man Abraham in 2000 BC as a promise to the antichrist Zionist state in 2025 AD.

Graham is one of the most repulsive, disgusting, sickening, hypocritical, duplicitous, inhumane, self-serving charlatans to ever exist. Since when does Lindsey Graham care a tinker’s dam about displeasing God? The man is a moral reprobate, a liar and the con man’s con man. He gets by with his obsession with wars for Israel (or wars of any kind, for that matter) because he lives in a State that undoubtedly has more Christian Zionist pastors and churches per capita than any other State in the Union. As with so many politicians in red states, they regurgitate what their conservative evangelical base wants to hear.

It is truly incredible that Christians have fallen for this “bless Israel” nonsense for so long. But the tide is swiftly turning. Thank God! Suddenly, Christian Zionists and their toadies in Congress are on the defensive, because the voice of truth and reason has gone from a faint whisper to a booming thunder—and the awakening is growing faster than Graham and the rest of the Israel lackeys can keep up.

Any thinking person can easily discern that the America of 2025 is not a nation that is reaping untold “blessings” for blindly supporting the atheist Zionist State of Israel for over 75 years. Just the opposite. America is reeling under the unrelenting judgment of Almighty God.

And why should we be surprised? The Lord God settled the Israel issue once and forever in 70 AD after fulfilling the promise to Abraham in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:16) That God would totally annihilate the remnant of what was left of the Hebrew nations of Israel and Judah in such a visible and violent way showed the world that Israel was not a nation to be associated with, much less favored.

Attempting to restore a nation under such dire judgment as Israel and then expecting to be “blessed” for providing it assistance is tantamount to attempting to restore the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and then expecting God to “bless” those attempting to bless them.

But then I repeat myself, because modern Israel is indeed a restored Sodom and Gomorrah. Jerusalem is even identified in John’s Revelation as Sodom. (Revelation 11:8) And still today, Israel is the sodomite capital of the world—along with the abortion capital of the world and pedophile capital of the world.

One of the first indications that God is judging America and not blessing it is, vermin such as Lindsey Graham are sitting in the U.S. Congress. What the prophet told apostate Israel in the Old Testament is applicable to America today:

And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. (Isaiah 3:4)

Take a look around. Where are the “blessings” for providing the apartheid State of Israel with trillions of dollars worth of bombs, missiles, jets—and even nuclear weapons—for the past 75+ years?

Families

Tell me, are America’s families better off now than in 1948, when we helped create this pariah state? Is the divorce rate higher or lower than in 1948? Are our children more well-behaved, polite and respectful now than in 1948? Is the nuclear family stronger now than it was in 1948? Is there more or less child abuse and spousal abuse today than in 1948? Is the overall family environment today better off than it was in 1948? Are more or less children taking behavior modification drugs than in 1948? Are there more or less dysfunctional families now than in 1948?

You know the answers to these questions.

The Economy 

Tell me, is America better off economically than it was in 1948? Is the dollar more sound than it was in 1948? The U.S. debt in 1948 was $252 billion. And that was on the heels of World War II. The national debt today is over $36 trillion. That is not a blessing; it is a curse, a curse that threatens our country’s very survival. In 1948, a typical American household was supported with the income of one breadwinner—usually the father. Today, both parents are working, and many are working multiple jobs just to keep their heads above water. How is that a “blessing”? In 1948 and succeeding years, America’s standard of living rose exponentially. What does the average American’s standard of living look like today? Private debt in the U.S. is over $24 trillion. You call that a “blessing”? Younger adults in this country find it almost impossible to be able to afford to purchase a house. You call that a “blessing”? Most Americans—even those approaching retirement age—have little or no savings. How is that a “blessing”?

You know the answers to these questions.

Culture

Tell me, how does America’s culture compare to 1948? Are there less violent crimes today than in 1948? Less murders? Less assaults? Less rapes? Less gang violence? Less theft? Less property damage? How do our entertainment venues compare to 1948? Are wholesomeness, propriety, manners, politeness, respect for the elderly, respect for the policeman, respect for the pastor and respect for other people’s property greater or less than in 1948? What about rudeness, crudeness, vulgarity, profanity, indecency, debauchery, honesty, fidelity? Greater or less than in 1948? Is there more or less alcoholism and drug addiction now than in 1948? Are there more or less suicides now than in 1948?

Again, you know the answers to these questions.

Education

Tell me, after 75+ years of helping the racial supremacist Ethno-State of Israel to commit mass murders, ethnic cleansings, land thefts, genocides, mass starvations and the wholesale slaughters of millions of innocent people—mostly women and children—how do our educational institutions stack up to 1948? Are our school children learning more or less? Can they read better now than in 1948? Can they spell better now than in 1948? Are their math skills better now than in 1948? What about their knowledge of literature, science and history? Better or worse than in 1948? What about their knowledge of government, our Constitution and Bill of Rights? What about the principles of federalism and freedom? More or less knowledgeable than in 1948? What about class conduct? Are children more or less respectful toward the teacher than in 1948? Are our classrooms a better or worse learning environment than in 1948? Do our teachers have more or less disciplinary control over the classroom today than in 1948? Can our children pray in our schools, as they could do in 1948? Can they read the Bible in school, as they could do in 1948?

Once more, you know the answer to these questions.

Spirituality

Tell me, does our society overall have more or less reverence for God and His Holy Word today than in 1948? Are Christians more or less loving, more or less grounded in sound doctrine, more or less humble or more or less dedicated to practicing their faith than in 1948? Is church attendance growing or declining compared to 1948? Are atheism and agnosticism growing or declining compared to 1948? Does the church have more or less influence on the children of America than in 1948? Does the church have more or less influence on the culture today than it did in 1948? Do the American people generally have more or less regard for the church and spiritual things today than they did in 1948?

Yet again, you know the answers to these questions.

God is not blessing America for supporting Israel; He is cursing America for supporting Israel (and for many other reasons).

In my Israel Package, Set One, Disc 4, Message 5, I delivered a homily entitled I Will Curse Them That Bless Thee that goes into depth explaining this doctrinal truth.

That millions of Americans are awakening to the idiocy of allowing the U.S. government to become a vassal state for Zionist Israel (which is exactly what it is) is undeniable—and I believe unstoppable.

Already, Christian Zionist pastors are in defense mode trying to conjure up arguments to stave off the attacks of truth against their promotion of this insidious and heretical doctrine. It’s not working. The ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass starvation of the people of Gaza have done what nothing else could seem to do: They have shown the world the satanic state that Zionist Israel has always been.

The majority of Americans under 50 are now openly opposed to U.S. support for Israel. This includes the deep-red MAGA states. Drop the age to under 40, and the percentage increases. Drop the age to under 30, and the percentage increases exponentially. The time is fast approaching that to be elected to public office in America will require a rejection of the State of Israel—the billions of dollars from AIPAC notwithstanding.

Even former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said Israel’s status in the United States “has never been so bad.” He said Benjamin Netanyahu has turned Israel into “a leper state.”

With the exception of the United States, almost every nation in the world stands in opposition to Israel and in support of an independent Palestinian state. Israel is self-imploding. It has never been weaker internationally, economically or militarily (except for its possession of nuclear weapons).

The military and intelligence experts that I follow are unanimous in their opinion that Israel is going to attack Iran again soon. Perhaps this month. If not, certainly during the month of September. But this time, Iran will not be measured in its military response.

It is unknown (because Israel hides the news—just as it hides the news that over 10,000 Israeli soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded since October 7, 2023), but it is suggested that thousands of Israelis have fled the country since Israel’s first attack in its 12-day war with Iran.

I am convinced that it is inevitable that, with or without U.S. support, the Zionist government in Israel will collapse. I believe God is about to remove this international blight from the world. The only question is, will America allow itself to be taken down with it?

Six months ago, I would have speculated that yes, it would. The subservience of Washington, D.C., to the Israel lobby and the indoctrination of Christian Zionism among America’s evangelical churches were so ensconced that there would be nothing to stop it.

Ah, but today, everything has changed!

In just a few short months, the veil of Zionist deception has been lifted, along with the Zionist hubris of invincibility. What Netanyahu and the IDF are doing now is purely out of desperation. They realize that along with burying tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian people under the rubble of bombed-out businesses, hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, aid shelters and homes, they have dug their own graves.

If the United States—including evangelical churches within the United States—has any hope of not sharing Israel’s fate, it must once and forever separate itself (politically, economically and most importantly spiritually) from the doomed Zionist state.

For over 75 years, America has supported Israel, and for over 75 years, God has been judging and cursing our country for this unholy union. Now, let’s pray that enough Americans will recognize and resist America’s complicity in this unspeakable evil and demand that our governmental leaders cut the umbilical cord with Israel once and for all.

If we don’t, Israel’s fate will surely be ours.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post God Is Not Blessing America for Supporting Israel; He Is Cursing America for Supporting Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today’s silly and ignorant crop of U.S. politicians seems to walk around with the assumption that the Founding Fathers had quaint, late 18th Century ideas that are no longer relevant to today’s bigger and more complex world. This assumption is false. Technology and weapons become more sophisticated, but human nature never changes.

George Washington was a far wiser man than most of the guys now residing in the city that bears his name could ever dream of being.

American foreign policy wonks and Congressmen such as Lindsey Graham insist on ignoring the sage advice that President Washington gave in his Farewell Address of 1796, printed in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796.

I have placed passages in bold that strike me as especially relevant to today’s state of affairs.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

America’s interventionist foreign policy wonks do not serve the interests of the American people, but those of defense contractors, bankers, lobbyists, and themselves.

Thinking about this reality, I can’t help wondering about the curious trips that Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Amy Klobuchar and others have made to Ukraine to fraternize with its politicians and soldiers. President Washington made it very clear what he would have thought about such junkets.

The United States has a great ocean on either side of its continental territory and the biggest navy in human history to patrol these oceans.

Europe has continually engaged in “frequent controversies” of the sort it engaged in during the pointless Napoleonic Wars of 1803 to 1815, as well as innumerable other wars during the 19th Century. The U.S. stayed out of all of them.

It was only when bankers, industrialists, and weapons makers acquired undue influence over foreign policy in the 20th Century that the U.S. government started intervening in Europe’s “frequent controversies.”

Washington’s exhortation to “Avoid Political Alliance” was an extension of his reflections on international relations.

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and in tractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opin ion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

I will gladly debate any academic or politician in this country who asserts that President Washington’s advice is no longer wise and tenable for our nation.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse -Focal Point.

The post ‘Avoid Political Alliance’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Most people accept the moral prohibitions on lying, murdering, and stealing in their personal lives as well as in their business affairs.  Why, then, does government, which is run by people, get a pass?  Is ethics irrelevant in government affairs?

The answer is yes, because there is no one to hold government accountable.  By its nature as a state, it is above accountability.  As Rothbard elaborately explained, the state is a criminal gang writ large, an organization not subject to its laws because of its monopoly of violence.  Jefferson’s notion of binding men down by the chains of the Constitution was easily broken by government intrigue.

Blame for the absence of government morals is sometimes laid on a loss of religious faith among citizens and the ones they elect.  But a Pew Research Religious Landscape Study (RLS), conducted in 2007, 2014 and 2023-24, revealed an overwhelming majority of Christians and non-Christians alike regard theft, murder, and lying as violations of honest living.  They may have lost their faith in a higher power, but their professed morals were unshaken.

If no one punished a person for stealing, he might be tempted to try it.  But due perhaps to a nagging conscience most people would still feel the need to justify the theft.  Since most ethical creeds censure actions taken in self-interest while praising actions taken for others, a thief can bathe in ethical sunlight if he can show he acted for someone other than himself.  (Philippians 2:3-4, John 15:13, Luke 6:35, Matthew 5:39-40 (Sermon on the Mount), 1 Corinthians 13:5)  Pushed consistently, the government becomes a welfare state.

The American state, founded inconsistently on laissez-faire, which itself was inconsistent with the prevailing ethics of self-sacrifice (see above), became wealthier than other governments because it presided over a economy that was allowed to flourish to historical highs, but then pulled off a coup in 1913 with the passage of the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act — each a major theft-enabling expansion of power.  The income tax had the “virtue” of soaking the rich, which it did initially with the War Revenue Act of 1917, but later, in combination with the Fed’s confiscatory monetary policy, led to the decline of the middle class and to a seemingly omnipresent government.

Woodrow Wilson, the White House resident during the 1913 coup, expressed dark thoughts about what he had done in his collection of campaign speeches, The New Freedom:

We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

Certain small but controlling groups crushed the last remnants of a relatively sound money system, using the economic crisis of the 1930s as an excuse, then through behind-the-scenes activities became a combatant in another foreign war, after the president’s repeated lies about not getting us into it.  Millions of deaths and billions in destruction later, the government, ostensibly led by a piano player from Missouri, amplified its interventionist ways when he signed the National Security Act of 1947.  Since then the government has found threats everywhere it looked, including Cuba, South America, Korea, China, Vietnam, the Middle East, and always, Russia.  Following 9-11, its sights have intensified on the people involuntarily supporting it, right here in the home field, on the premise that terrorists could be lurking anywhere.

What other country has “750 military base ‘sites’ estimated in around 80 foreign countries and colonies/territories”?  Maybe the world wouldn’t seem so threatening if we left it alone.  The US has thereby become a Roman warfare state, with untouchable intelligence and military budgets.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his essay “The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative,” points out the blatant contradictions between the personal ethics of most people and the defining “ethics” of government.  Regarding the Ten Commandments, he writes:

In this, the biblical commandments go above and beyond what many libertarians regard as sufficient for the establishment of a peaceful social order: the mere strict adherence to commandments six, eight, and ten. Yet this difference between a strict and rigid libertarianism and the ten biblical commandments does not imply any incompatibility between the two. Both are in complete harmony if only a distinction is made between legal prohibitions on the one hand, expressed in commandments six, eight, and ten, violations of which may be punished by the exercise of physical violence, and extralegal or moral prohibitions on the other hand, expressed in commandments five, seven, and nine, violations of which may be punished only by means below the threshold of physical violence, such as social disapproval, discrimination, exclusion, or ostracism.

He concludes: “Even with the greatest intellectual contortions it is impossible to derive the institution of a state from these commandments.”

Yet the state’s senior denizens bear false witness every hour of the day, with impunity.  As we witnessed during the Covid episode major political donors also escaped accountability for its egregious acts.  Included in the Covid nightmare were prestigious medical institutions, flush with government money, promoting false information about hydroxychloroquine, that continue today as unabashed medical authorities.  To paraphrase Thomas Paine, freedom was hunted throughout the country as well as the rest of the world.  What’s to prevent governments from attempting a Covid II?

The inalienable rights of all men that Jefferson set forth in the Declaration need a strong champion to defend them, and I suggest it takes its form in a competitive free market where security is purchased along with other goods.  Governing by monopoly force is incompatible with human well-being.

The post Why Do We Live in a Two-Faced World? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The late columnist, Joe Sobran, diagnosed America’s political malaise with scalpel-like precision:

If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.

By this clinical standard, the forgotten American qualifies as a dangerous extremist—and it is high time people like this wear that scarlet letter with pride.

Sobran was one of those extremists. At one time, he was an influential columnist and a prominent voice on the American right, but by the mid-1980s, he started to have second thoughts about U.S. policy in the Middle East. For possessing such pluck, he was summarily banished from the so-called “conservative movement” by his mentor and publisher at National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr.

It must be noted that what masquerades as conservatism today would send Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, spinning like a Kentucky Derby toteboard. The movement that once defended “an enduring moral order” and championed “prudent restraints upon power” has been colonized by Trotsky’s ideological grandchildren—neoconservative saboteurs who mistake perpetual warfare for patriotic duty.

The linguistic battlefield has also been scorched beyond recognition. The inheritors of Buckley’s drift against Sobran’s extremism—Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and their bow-tied confederates—have transformed a robust intellectual tradition into cocktail-party conservatism: respectable enough for Georgetown dinner parties, toothless enough for progressive approval. Meanwhile, the moderate serpents perform their familiar slithering routine between positions with wind-licking dexterity.

Invade the world? Absolutely, Senator. Tax-and-spend domestically? Without question, Congressman.

They represent the most insidious threat of all—ideological chameleons who stand for nothing except their own advancement up the greasy pole of political ambition.

Jack Callahan, American, puts it more bluntly: “These weasels in Washington would sell their grandmothers for committee assignments and their principles for campaign contributions. At least honest liberals will tell you they’re coming for both your wallet and your freedoms. These moderate frauds smile while picking both pockets simultaneously.”

In this blood-soaked century alone, the neoconservative itch for foreign intervention has drained nearly a generation’s worth of American blood and treasure. Their incessant pruritus, developed from a longing for overseas adventurism, never gets scratched sufficiently to satisfy their imperial appetites.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Syria. Ukraine. The drumbeat continues. Meanwhile, American cities crumble like ancient Rome, with their borders dissolving like sugar in acid rain.

So yes, go ahead and call these non-interventionists “extremists.” They’d be guilty as charged by every current tribunal of acceptable opinion. Nevertheless, the demand is for the rascals in government to keep their grubby hands off both domestic tranquility and the sovereignty of foreign nations.

Today’s extremists understand that both “permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” They also adhere religiously to “custom, convention, and continuity,” because, as that dangerous extremist Edmund Burke observed centuries ago, “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.”

Furthermore, Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, had the gall to tell progressives and others that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Reflect. Should liberty even serve as a rallying cry in today’s cultural wasteland?

The modern mind has perverted the very concept beyond recognition, confusing liberty with libertinism and freedom with license. When most Americans hear “liberty,” they envision the unconstrained ability to do whatever feels good—a guaranteed recipe for civilizational collapse.

Consider the French revolutionary motto. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Not surprisingly, this also serves as Haiti’s motto. Objections to “liberty,” so-called, were previously noted, but fraternity remains beyond reproach—community bonds matter more than individual whims.

More importantly, equality has failed spectacularly wherever attempted, from the Reign of Terror to Haiti’s ongoing tragedy. Contra Meat Loaf’s romantic nonsense, two out of three is catastrophically bad.

“The problem with equality,” Callahan observes, “is that God didn’t create equal people. He created unique souls with different gifts, different callings, and different destinies. Trying to force equality is like trying to make every river flow uphill—you can attempt it with enough government force, but you’ll destroy the natural landscape in the process.”

Today’s extremists champion voluntary community over involuntary collectivism. We stand as proud inheritors of ancestral wisdom, not “unburdened by what has been,” despite what 2024’s most prominent philosophizer—with her daily samplings of vapid word salad—tried to force Americans to believe.

The accumulated wisdom of a society’s forebears allows the populace to peer further into the future precisely because it is standing on the shoulders of a previous generation. Extremists don’t dance upon the graves of their ancestors.

Consider. The crisis isn’t about government itself. That’s another argument for another day, if the Republic is still breathing. The immediate problem lies with the current regime’s personnel, those who consistently make everything worse through their ham-fisted interventions.

Whether Pentagon bureaucrats are planning the next overseas adventure or Education Department commissars are targeting first-graders with gender ideology, the pattern remains depressingly consistent. This type of interference breeds chaos like mosquitoes do in stagnant water.

Extremists possess something today’s liberals, moderates, and conservatives conspicuously lack: inherited wisdom. They understand that authentic “conservatism” means conserving what matters—family, faith, community, and country—not some globalist empire masquerading as the world’s policeman in today’s political theater.

Callahan’s final verdict cuts through the fog: “They call us extremists because we remember what America was supposed to be. We believe in borders, babies, and baseball played without pitch clocks. We think fathers should be fathers and mothers should be mothers, that children need both, and that ‘Follow The Science’ usually means ‘ignore common sense.’ If that makes us extreme, then every previous generation of Americans was extreme too.”

The establishment will continue hurling “extremist” like a playground epithet, as if the label stings. Let them.

Extremists—those as Sobran described—will wear the label as a badge of honor, knowing that in an age of manufactured lies, telling simple truths has indeed become an extreme act. In a culture gone certifiably mad, sanity appears radical to the inmates that run the asylum.

The choice will soon crystallize and do so with brutal clarity: embrace extremism or watch civilization finally unravel from the comfortable sidelines of moderate respectability.

Some battles demand that sides be chosen without apology. This is one of them.

The forgotten Americans have spoken. Now let the extremists govern.

This article was originally published on The O’Leary Review.

The post In an Age of Lies, Truth Is Extreme appeared first on LewRockwell.