Lew Rockwell Institute

The crime in Charlotte was breathtakingly horrific. Almost unimaginable.

But to the battalions of right wingers out there with their race-based crime charts, pointing the fingers and hooting about “the Blacks” and “Black fatigue,” etc. here’s a clue: The real villain in this whole thing is the State.

It was the State, starting well before the “Great Society” nonsense, that sought to intervene in the lives of American Blacks to “bring them up” to “our” level.

And “fight racism,” of course.

They only succeeded in destroying the one thing that actually helped bring Black people out of poverty and despair: Black Families.

Just as it was the state that passed the “Jim Crow” laws in the first place, when the State decided to clean up its act and make amends, it only succeeded in making matters worse.

The white “do-gooders” who substituted the State for the Black father through welfare and all manner of state-intervention have blood on their hands.

You like statistics? Have a look at how many Black kids grow up with Uncle Sam as their surrogate father.

And it’s easy to blame white liberals for the mayhem the State has unleashed on Black people for the past 70 or so years. But conservatives did next to nothing to make a coherent argument against the State interfering in our families. In fact they have been all for it.

The thug who killed that beautiful young woman should pay dearly for his crime. But the real hand on the knife was the State.

The post The Real Hand on the Charlotte Knife appeared first on LewRockwell.

America’s Untold Stories
With Eric Hunley and Mark Groubert

Ruth Paine: The Woman Who Took JFK Secrets to the Grave

Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley of America’s Untold Stories sit down with filmmaker Max Good following the death of Ruth Paine on August 31, 2025. As the woman who housed Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy, Ruth Paine has long been viewed as a key figure in the JFK mystery—and one who may have taken explosive secrets to her grave.

Max Good, director of The Assassination & Mrs. Paine, shares rare insights from his years researching and interviewing Ruth Paine for his acclaimed documentary. Was she just a well-meaning Quaker—or a knowing participant in a larger intelligence operation? Why did so many JFK researchers question her story for decades? And what questions remain now that she’s gone?

This episode dives deep into Ruth’s connection to the assassination, her CIA-linked relatives, and the lingering doubts surrounding her involvement.

The JFK case just lost a living witness—don’t miss this.

Find out more about “The Assassination and Mrs Paine” and how to watch it at https://www.jfkpaine.com/

Join us November 21st–23rd, 2025 in Dallas at JFK Lancer Conference (or Virtually)

Tickets now available at https://assassinationconference.com/
Virtual tickets start at $75.99
In-person tickets start at $149.99

Discount Code: Use UNTOLD10 at checkout for 10% off

The post Ruth Paine: The Woman Who Took JFK Secrets to the Grave appeared first on LewRockwell.

Senator Ron Johnson joins us today to discuss the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and the legitimate questions that he and many other Americans have about that story. We discuss Senator Johnson’s problems with the official 9/11 investigation, whether the Senate can and should hold new hearings on the subject, and what he will be discussing at the upcoming Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice in 2025 conference in Washington, D.C. We also delve into harm caused by the experimental mRNA injections and the subsequent erosion of public trust in government and institutions.

The post Senator Ron Johnson Dares to Question 9/11 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bill Madden wrote:

Please read what Gary has to say about central bank digital currency (CBDC) as total control of our currency by our rogue government will destroy our financial freedom.  Our dollar and all currencies in the world are fiat – and, they shouldn’t be. 

By reading Aristotle’s Definition of Money, you will learn that money must be a “store of value” and no currency in the world is a store of value.  As J.P. Morgan said: “Only gold is money.  Everything else is credit”.  If a currency is fiat paper or a fiat accounting entry backed by gold, anyone holding the fiat currency must be able to convert the fiat currency to gold at some official rate at any time.  Backing a currency with oil or some B.S. basket of other fiat currencies is government hocus pocus.

Voltaire said that fiat currency always returns to its true value of zero. 

Since there was major opposition to the CBDC, the government will attempt to force their control on us with the stable coin.  Interestingly, they intend to back up the fiat stable coin with fiat dollars.  Please remember what Voltaire said.

The Constitution directs the Congress to coin money with no mention of interest and, yet, we have been finessed into a central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, creating our dollars from thin air and issuing the dollars into circulation with interest currently about one trillion dollars a year.  Adding insult to injury, we are paying interest on fake money.

The post Central bank digital currency (CBDC) appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Maureen McKerracher.

The post Russia & the US Are Sending Lengthy Nuclear Coded Messages! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm. 

Religion & Liberty Online

The post When “Reproductive Rights” Become Cultural Imperialism appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Israel Bombs Hamas Negotiators In Qatar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

The post Why Israel Is More Evil Than You Thought appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Europe’s Self-Destruction Is Now Irreversible appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes R. M. Givens:

Hi Lew,

Here are the links for the three episodes and the trailer.

Trailer: https://youtu.be/XNl-qfl5iq0

Ep. 1 https://youtu.be/NjQ7hqAcXPI

Ep. 2 https://youtu.be/y0IgB1n_6PY

Ep. 3 https://youtu.be/MSdwZDnGhpU

The post wWonderful new film on how southern Jews loyally and courageously fought for their beloved Homeland during WBTS appeared first on LewRockwell.

Jerome Barber wrote:

Palantir.   They are not hiding anything anymore.  We can all tell freedom bye-bye.

The post Pure Evil appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Christopher Condon.

WorldNetDaily News

The post Psych meds and mass murder appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

“Every accusation is a confession.”

The post Israel: The Narcissistic State appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump has recently endorsed a policy that is arguably as socialist as anything proposed by New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or Sen. Bernie Sanders — partial government ownership of private corporations.

Earlier this year, as a condition of approving Nippon Steel’s purchase of US Steel, President Trump demanded Nippon give the US government a “golden share” in US Steel. This golden share allows the US government to overrule Nippon’s management if the government determines Nippon is acting against US “national security,” which means the government can overrule many decisions made by Nippon‘s management.

Unfortunately, Nippon was not a “one-and-done” excursion into corporatism. President Trump recently struck a deal with computer chip manufacturer Intel to give the company 8.9 billion dollars in government subsidies in exchange for ten percent of Intel’s stock. This deal makes the US government Intel’s largest stockholder!

The Trump administration has promised that it will not use its position to undermine Intel’s board. However, the administration is reserving the right to counter Intel’s board if the administration determines the board is taking an action that would adversely impact the relationship of the company or its subsidiaries with the US government. So, the Trump administration is yet again giving itself power to manage a nominally private company.

Enabling the government to control a private company (even if the government does not actually exercise its power) means the company’s management will base its decisions on what will please those currently in power, rather than on the desires of consumers.

Government investment in corporations will cause politicians to make decisions based on what will profit the companies the government has “invested” in while those companies’ competitors will seek to attract government investment in order to win special privileges for themselves.

A corporation partially owned by government will be considered “too big to fail” since its failure would cause the government to lose the money “invested” in the businesses. So, the argument will be that a bailout will save the taxpayers money.

According to a 2024 analysis by the World Bank — an organization not known as a supporter of free-market economics, companies of which government owns ten percent or more are six percent less profitable and have workforces that are 32 percent less productive.

Some members of the Trump administration have suggested that the federal government take a partial ownership interest in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pointed out that big defense contractor Lockheed Martin, for example, is “basically an arm of the US government” since almost all its revenue comes from the US government. Secretary Lutnick has a point, but the closeness between the Pentagon and big corporations is an argument for restoring a noninterventionist foreign policy. Giving the government an ownership interest in defense contractors would allow the war party to argue that militarism is good for the taxpayer because it boosts the value of the government’s “investments”!

Government “investment” in private businesses will only worsen the twin plagues of corporatism and cronyism that afflict our political and economic systems. Instead of further entangling government and business, those seeking to make America great again should work to end the welfare-warfare-regulatory state and the fiat money system that makes it possible. The only path to prosperity is through a true free market, limited government, and a foreign policy of peace and free trade.

The post Making Corporatism Great Again appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writing in Chronicles about his “alleged collaborators in infamy,” Paul Gottfried skewers the tendency to lump together all arguments with which one disagrees, and to treat them as if they were all essentially one and the same argument by dint of the fact that one opposes them all. For example, the “woke left” and “woke right” are lumped together as two types of “woke.” Critics of “woke” lump together paleoconservatives (the traditional right whom they classify as woke right) and critical theory Neo-Marxists (whom they classify as woke left). Thus, we are to understand that there is no real difference between the anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the Frankfurt School Marxist Jürgen Habermas, and no real difference between the paleoconservative intellectual historian Paul Gottfried and the journalist Tucker Carlson. To their critics—who regard themselves as the center of all things—all these men are just different types of “woke,” though some fall to the left and others to the right. Gottfried explains:

They even try to group all the baddies to the left and right of the establishment by embracing a once-popular notion that I heard from my college instructors in the early 1960s. According to these teachers, the “extremes come together” and there is more that these extremes have in common with each other than with those nice people in the middle who reject them.

As Connor Mortell explains, these critics are “operating as if usage of the same or similar machinery means that the groups have the same or similar meaning.” Further, they treat political labels as if their meaning (that is, the meaning based on the critics’ own definition of the label) is agreed upon by everyone as the universal standard. For example, these critics label themselves “classical liberals,” but their ideas differ to such an important extent from those expressed by Ludwig von Mises in Liberalism in the Classical Tradition that the term “classical liberal” cannot be treated as a matter of universal consensus among its own adherents. A key controversy among contemporary classical liberals concerns the concepts of nationalism, the integrity of national borders, and the legitimacy of border control. As they see it, nationalism and border control impede free markets and individual liberty. By contrast, Mises’s concept of classical liberalism does not attempt to answer questions of nationhood. Mises emphasized that liberalism is a material doctrine that does not attempt to address the metaphysical needs of a people, such as the sense of belonging (or not) to a nation:

Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs.

The sense of nationhood or loyalty to a nation is one that emerges in large part from people’s “inner, spiritual and metaphysical” values, and is not based purely on an analysis of material welfare or economic outcomes. Rothbard highlights this point in “Nations by Consent”:

The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.

The aim here is not to explore the Misesian definition of nationalism, but simply to highlight the point that classical liberalism cannot tell anyone whether, how, or to what extent, to care about his family, language, culture, ethnicity, or religious beliefs, nor how to express that devotion, or the importance to accord to it. Many people care deeply about such matters, while others want to live in a world without nations and without national borders. Those who insist that loyalty to nation is “woke right” call themselves the only “true” classical liberals but, ironically, it is they who have rejected a core principle of classical liberalism—the scope for philosophical and moral disagreement on precisely such matters. The gatekeepers who have anointed themselves as the arbiters of classical liberalism presume this ideology to have a specific interpretation—their own—which is based on their own vision of social progress. Gottfried remarks: “Our critics have often justified their efforts to marginalize us by citing our stubborn opposition to what they view as social progress.”

This form of social progress is now championed by what Gottfried calls “Conservative Inc.” and includes feminism, genderism, and “the state worship of Martin Luther King Jr.” These, we are told by the gatekeepers, are classical liberal values and anyone who rejects them is some form of extremist—either woke left or woke right.

Gottfried acknowledges that “the notion that extremes touch may be true in some cases.” For example, many people have highlighted the convergence of fascist and communist policies, both of which rely on tyranny to maximize the power of the “total state.” But Gottfried also highlights the differences in these extremes, which are often the opposite of each other:

As a historian, I would never mistake 19th-century conservatives who favored a traditional hierarchical and preferably agrarian society with socialist revolutionaries. Entities that may be equally unacceptable to later historical critics do not become similar in nature by that fact… even a callow youth can realize that not all figures past and present with whom one disagrees were saying or doing the same things. Drawing parallels only works if they show striking likeness. Otherwise, they are clumsy or tendentious nonstarters. Even if I spent a week pondering this problem, I couldn’t explain why the LA hellraisers or the Seattle Autonomous Zone that soared into existence during 2020’s Summer of Love should remind me of the Southern planter class.

Therein lies the difficulty, as what counts as a “striking likeness” rather depends on what one seeks to emphasize. The “centrists” who classify their opponents left or right as “woke” look for similarities in language and form, so that, for example, everyone who complains about “systemic racism” is woke—complaining of racism against black people is woke left, while complaining of racism against white people is woke right. They see all rebellions as similar, so the Black Lives Matter Summer of Love is similar to the secession of the Southern states (they are all just rebellions!). It is perhaps, to a degree, quite natural to highlight what one wishes to see and gloss over inconvenient facts. As Macaulay put it, in reference to this tendency among historians, “Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavorable to it.” People will of course spin analogies and examples in such a way as to highlight the point they wish to make. But carried too far, anything could be argued to be similar to anything else, and the whole point of drawing upon analogies is lost. Rather than clarifying arguments, they serve to obscure the truth.

Gottfried argues that self-declared centrists—by drawing tendentious analogies classifying their conservative opponents as woke right—aim to ostracize those with whom they disagree, to “throw all their hated targets into the same ‘extremist’ dumpster.” Although they describe themselves as “classical liberalism,” their ranks are filled by progressive liberals of an academic bent who exclude all those who do not already share their own definitional framework. This is a weakness of all forms of progressive liberalism, a point made by David Gordon in his essay “The Problems of Public Reason”—progressive liberalism is “respectful and non-coercive — to those who accept its tenets. Those outside the ‘legitimation pool’ of these accepters do not count.” It is indeed tolerant of dissent, but only among those already within its own ranks. Everyone else is “woke right.”

The post Classical Liberalism and the Woke Right Extremists appeared first on LewRockwell.

Does Trump even enjoy the leeway from his unseen bonds to seize on nuclear détente as his Nobel Prize story, should he so choose?

The gloves are off. The SCO Summit was a clear demonstration of the reality of power starkly coalescing, on the one hand, and one of power visibly ebbing, on the other. The amazing military parade was the summit counterpart – it spoke loudly: You want to take us on? ‘We are ready’.

China has thrown down the gauntlet with precision timing. (You’d almost think they had planned it that way …). ‘History is being written – in Russian and Chinese ink’, observed one Russian commentator.

Western political systems are in turmoil, beleaguered by populist politics promising everything, yet lacking the tools by which to resolve anything. Western alliances are riven by doubt and uncertainty, with political stability fissuring under pressure from the failures of western borrow and spend policies. Even The Economist concedes that “a new reality is taking hold”.

Trump’s reaction to the SCO spectacle was a snarky dig at some perceived anti-American ‘conspiracy’. Yet, if he feels himself to be the ‘wallflower’ to this gathering of ‘friends’, it is because he chose not to go to Tianjin. He has only himself to blame. Should the SCO become defined in the western psyche as anti-western, then that too will be largely down to Trump – and how he chooses to frame the U.S.’ future.

Xi made this latter point in his opening speech: “Humanity is again faced with a choice of peace or war, dialogue or confrontation, and win-win outcomes; or zero-sum games”.

Unfortunately, Trump is probably too far down the road of pursuing American ‘exceptionalist greatness’ to expect much of a nuanced response from him. But then again, Trump often does seem to defy the obvious.

The default psychological mode of the West will be defensively antagonistic. The U.S. clearly has not been prepared psychologically to go onto any sort of equal footing with these SCO powers. Centuries of colonial superiority have shaped a culture where the only possible model is hegemony and the imposition of pro-Western dependency.

To acknowledge China, Russia or India as having ‘detached’ from the ‘Rules-based Order’ and constructed a separated non-western sphere clearly implies accepting the end of western global hegemony. And it means accepting too, that the hegemonic era as a whole is over. The U.S. and European ruling strata are categorically not in the mood for this. The European ruling strata, like true believers, continue to bristle with hostility toward Russia.

So for the Europeans, there is no question that they too felt something judder, but did not understand what exactly had caused the tremor – and thus decided on rudeness as a response. Friedrich Merz stated his belief: “Putin is a war criminal. He is perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time that we have seen on a large scale. We must be clear about how to deal with war criminals: There is no room for leniency”.

The reality (and the little that we know) of what has emerged from China’s Tiananmen Square parade will undoubtedly cause consternation in Washington, Brussels and London: President Xi declared China’s rise to be “unstoppable”, whilst showcasing over 10,000 troops marching in perfect synchronicity and revealing impressive new Chinese weaponry (a nuclear, 20,000 km range ICBM; a laser-powered interceptor and giant underwater drones).

Most notably, President Xi (also for the first time) showcased the PLA’s land, sea, and air-based nuclear force – a complete and deadly triad.

At the victory celebration parade, Xi stood proudly with his U.S.-sanctioned allies, and sat on the dais with Kim Jong Un directly to his left and Putin to his right – a symbolic line up few can have expected. Equally, the bonhomie evident between Putin, Xi and Prime Minister Modi clearly was real and not contrived.

The practical output from the summit too will nonplus the West. The announcement of the Siberia 2 pipeline, Blomberg notes, effectively puts an end to plans for U.S. ‘energy dominance’.

As Blomberg’s editorial put it, “China may now stop importing more than half of its foreign LNG, and by the early 2030s, the share of Russian gas in China’s needs could reach 20%. Analysts quickly calculated the implementation of the Power of Siberia 2 project is equivalent to a drop in demand of about 40 million tons of LNG per year”.

“This means that many LNG production projects, which the U.S. had bet on, no longer make sense”.

What will be the other sequellae? The U.S. and European dark State will not take these events lightly. In their hostility, their anger will likely focus on Russia first and foremost (via Ukraine), and in parallel, via Russia and China’s strategic ally, Iran.

During the summit, Xi proposed the creation of a new international security and economic order, explicitly challenging the existing U.S.-led institutional system. He described the initiative as a step toward building a multipolar world. And having announced it – the first specific piece of SCO ‘action’ followed directly.

China and Russia joined Iran in rejecting a European initiative to reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran through the ‘snapback mechanism’. A letter signed jointly by the Foreign Ministers of China, Russia and Iran, and addressed to the UN Secretary General, stated in uncompromising terms that for the E3 to trigger ‘snapback’ provision “clearly contravenes the resolution, and therefore, is by default, legally and procedurally flawed. The E3’s course both abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council – whilst misleading its members as well as the international community concerning the root causes of breakdown in the implementation of the JCPOA and the UNSCR 2231”.

Harsh language, which nonetheless may not prove sufficient to stop the sanctions snapback from coming into effect in 30 days from the 28 August transmission of the E3 letter to the Security Council.

The E3 claim that their action actually provides ‘space’ for Iran to negotiate a return to full JCPOA compliance – but this is belied by the E3 tying the 30 day negotiation period to new demands for Iran’s missile inventory and its foreign policy posture to be integral to any agreement. They know that these further elements will never be accepted by Iran.

The E3 therefore effectively are setting up Iran for military action through the introduction of unrealisable conditionality.

It is clear that China and Russia’s statement implies that they will not comply with any snapback sanctions should they be imposed on Iran.

Trump periodically claims that he does not want war with Iran, but nonetheless, he already struck Iran’s nuclear facilities (on 22nd June).

The ‘snapback framing’ with its punitive conditionality seemingly intended to incur a breakdown in diplomacy did not arise out of the blue.

Recall that it was Trump, who in February 2025, signed a National Presidential Memorandum (a legally binding injunction) that U.S. objectives are to be that ‘Iran be denied a nuclear weapon; intercontinental ballistic missiles and that ‘Iran’s network and campaign of regional aggression be neutralized’”; that the Treasury Secretary should implement maximum sanctions pressure on Iran; and the U.S. representative to the UN should work with key allies to complete the ‘snapback’ of international sanctions and restrictions on Iran, whilst holding Iran accountable for its breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (amongst many other provisions included in the memorandum)’.

The February 2025 Presidential Memorandum set the table towards either eventual military action against Iran – or Iran’s total capitulation. Denying Iran its missile defence and links to regional allies was always a non-starter. Yet here these demands are resurfacing again with the latest E3 demands. Who’s behind this? Trump, and behind him – Netanyahu.

Round one on Iran has already been tried, and now, forces behind the scenes are pressing for a further round. They see Iran strengthening, Israel weakening, and the window of opportunity shortening. They are in a hurry.

The other strand of western retribution to the SCO ‘impudence’ in standing aloof from western primacy likely will take shape in Ukraine. More pressure, military and financial on Russia, will be the demand by the Europeans and Zelensky.

Russia no doubt briefed colleagues at Tianjin that it intends to convey the message to Trump that Russia will be continuing the Special Military Operation until all the set tasks and goals are fully achieved (since Washington seems unable to control the Ukrainians and Europeans). Should matters take a different course, Russia stands ready for a diplomatic path to end the conflict – but on its terms. The primary effort however, will be that of securing victory on the battlefield. Should Trump escalate in response, Russia will respond appropriately.

Trump subsists under huge pressures and (unknown) hooks. But what we have seen again and again with Trump is that he defies the obvious. He manages to survive things – to outlast them, and indeed to thrive in some sense precisely because of them. Adversity is his lifeblood. He has that inexplicable indomitable quality that those who know him well claim to feel.

Can Trump re-adjust in the post-Tianjin moment? Will a continuation of his demand for U.S. entitlement to financial hegemony now lead – in the face of a defiant SCO bloc – to a weakening of America? Was the timing of China ‘throwing down the gauntlet’ entirely fortuitous? Or, is the West’s financial status more brittle than generally understood?

Does Trump even enjoy the leeway from his unseen bonds to seize on nuclear détente as his Nobel Prize story, should he so choose?

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Can Trump Re-Adjust in the Post-Tianjin SCO Moment? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thirty-five years ago this Thursday, President George H.W. Bush gave an important speech entitled “Toward a New World Order.” Wikipedia has excerpted a few of its central elements:

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and the cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the genuine prospect of new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a “world order” in which “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong …” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

Bush’s public address before a joint session of Congress emphasized the successful conclusion of our decades-long Cold War against Soviet Communism, a struggle ending in a complete victory for the West.

A year earlier the Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact established by the USSR to counter NATO had collapsed. The Soviet Union itself was on the verge of disintegrating seven decades after its original creation, leaving behind a shrunken Russian successor state that included only half that previous population. Moscow would soon be reduced to ruling territories far smaller than those held by Peter the Great in the early 18th century.

During that same summer of 1989, enormous pro-Western demonstrations by students and workers had filled Beijing’s central square, and although the Chinese government had successfully suppressed those Tiananmen Square protests with considerable loss of life, the Communist regime seemed to be tottering, widely expected to follow its Soviet counterpart onto the ash-heap of history.

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama also published his famous article “The End of History?” describing what seemed to be a sweeping and permanent ideological triumph for the Western system. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he dropped his question mark and expanded that analysis into a bestselling 1992 book of the same title.

Not only did America tower over the entire world politically and economically, but nearly all of the other large and successful countries were numbered among its longstanding allies, with Japan and the members of NATO looking to Washington’s leadership. And although the Japanese had seemingly challenged American economic dominance during the 1980s, that country had already entered a decade of economic stagnation, soon eliminating any such prospect.

Just a few weeks before Bush’s speech, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had invaded and occupied Kuwait, and many of our president’s statements regarding international law addressed this situation even as he began assembling a powerful coalition to defeat the aggressor and expel it from the territory it had seized. The ultimate result was a complete military triumph in February 1991, with the large and experienced Iraqi army being totally destroyed by our advanced weaponry with negligible American loss of life, further demonstrating that our power was completely unmatched by any possible rival.

So that same year saw both our sweeping victory in the Gulf War and the final collapse of our longtime Soviet rival. America entered what soon became known as the unipolar moment, with both our hard and our soft power entirely supreme across the globe.

No previous country in the history of the world had ever achieved such total dominance across so many different sectors, whether political, economic, ideological, or technological. Educated individuals from around the world received much of their information from American media outlets even as their populations were entertained by Hollywood productions. The children of the world’s ruling elites eagerly sought to enroll at American academic institutions, as did so many of the best and brightest youngsters of every country, thereby allowing America to shape the minds of the world’s next generation of leaders.

President Bush himself was one of our most establishmentarian political figures, someone who had spent the bulk of his entire career in public service, and he probably regarded the declarations in his speech as the final fulfillment of America’s longstanding political goals, the culmination of two generations of effort. In his mind, the New World Order that he hailed merely represented the proper functioning of the United Nations and other postwar international organizations. He assumed that America would play a dominant role in those institutions, but hardly a unilateral or dictatorial one.

As it happened, Bush’s choice of phrases was rather unfortunate. Both he and his speechwriters came from entirely mainstream backgrounds, so they were probably unaware that for decades the term “New World Order” had inspired severe paranoia in far right political circles. Such individuals believed that it represented the plotting of evil globalist elites to destroy American freedom and sovereignty and create a one-world government under their nefarious control.

Gary Allen, an influential figure in the conspiratorial John Birch Society, had published several books with that theme, often including “New World Order” in his titles. Many Republican grassroots organizations were dominated by the right-wing followers of Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, and in 1991 he published The New World Order, a book that expressed very similar fears and became a major bestseller. Indeed, that much demonized term became so widespread in such ideological circles that it was often abbreviated as the acronym NWO, associated with the dark, Satanic forces of the world.

If President Bush had been deliberately trying to provoke a popular right-wing revolt in his own Republican party, his speech could not have done a better job. The resulting ideological backlash probably contributed to his unexpected reelection defeat in 1992, as large numbers of fearful and angry conservatives flocked to Pat Buchanan’s insurgent challenge in the primaries and then pulled the lever for Ross Perot in November. As a third party candidate, Perot drew nearly 19% percent of the national vote, an astonishing total for someone who had never held any political office.

Although Bush was replaced by Bill Clinton in the White House, the foreign policy positions of the two administrations were not so very different, and America’s commitment to the existing international structures that it had created and dominated remained strong.

But today our country is run by Donald Trump, a very different sort of American leader. If the world has spent the years since 1991 mostly living in what Bush once called the New World Order, the actions of our current president are overthrowing and replacing that international system with what might be called the Newer World Order, one that largely reverses many of its major elements.

According to some contemporaneous wits, the heavy-handed policies and political blunders of King George III played such a crucial role in inspiring the American Revolution that the British monarch should probably have been regarded as one of our founding fathers, perhaps even more important to the creation of our country than George Washington or anyone else.

In a very similar manner, day by day and week by week President Trump has been overturning the existing system of American global dominance that has endured for the last thirty-five or even eighty years, dismantling it brick by brick in ways that would have been far beyond the capabilities of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or any other American rival.

Although Trump’s actions are now producing the final destruction of American hegemony, the underlying trends responsible for this development actually stretch back for decades, beginning before Trump had even opened the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City, his first important real estate project,

The central factor in this changed international landscape has been the economic and technological rise of China, which since the late 1970s has advanced far more rapidly than any other major country in the history of the world, and I discussed this in a 2012 article.

• China’s Rise, America’s Fall
  Ron Unz • The American Conservative • April 17, 2012 • 7,000 Words

Three years later, Graham Allison, the longtime founding dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, published a seminal 2015 article describing the high historical likelihood of a geopolitical clash between between a reigning power such as the U.S. and a rising international competitor such as China, a confrontation that he described as “The Thucydides Trap.”

• The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
  In 12 of 16 past cases in which a rising power has confronted a ruling power, the result has been bloodshed
  Graham Allison • The Atlantic • September 24, 2015 • 3,700 Words

Allison then expanded this same idea into Destined for War, a national 2017 bestseller that attracted almost unprecedented praise from influential American policy-makers and intellectuals as it persuaded our ruling DC foreign policy elites that a global geopolitical clash with China was almost inevitable. Similar concerns were held by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had been a career diplomat with decades of deep personal expertise on China, and he expressed these in his 2022 book The Avoidable War, bearing the grimly accurate subtitle “The Dangers of a Catastrophic Conflict between the US and Xi Jinping’s China.”

Even earlier, the eminent political scientist John Mearsheimer had released an updated 2014 edition of his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, adding a long last chapter on the rise of China and the strong likelihood of a clash with America.

In his historical analysis, Mearsheimer explained that the usual geopolitical approach followed by American strategists had been to form a balancing coalition against a rising regional rival. In the case of China, he naturally assumed that this loose alliance would include Russia, India, and Japan, as well as smaller powers such as South Korea and Vietnam. Any rational American leaders would have taken this approach.

Read the Whole Article

The post President Donald Trump as Founding Father of the Newer World Order appeared first on LewRockwell.

Living with an inflammatory bowel disorder (IBD) like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis is a daily balancing act marked by unpredictability. Symptoms such as abdominal pain, urgent diarrhea, and fatigue can flare up without warning, disrupting plans and demanding constant awareness of diet, stress, and bathroom access.

Severe flares can escalate to the point of requiring hospitalization, where intense pain, dehydration, or complications like obstructions necessitate urgent medical intervention, often involving IV treatments or surgery.

During flares, the physical toll—cramping, bloating, and sometimes blood in the stool—can be exhausting, while remission periods offer relief but never erase the underlying uncertainty of potential hospital stays. Beyond the body, IBD carries an emotional weight: frustration from cancelled outings, anxiety about explaining the condition, and the quiet resilience needed to manage (frequently toxic) medications, doctor visits, hospital recoveries, and lifestyle adjustments. Likewise, owing to their complexity and frequent severity, inflammatory bowel diseases are often quite challenging for physicians to manage, hence frequently requiring specialized care.

Note: one highly under appreciated consequence of inflammatory bowel disorders is that they reduce the absorption of key nutrients (e.g., by up-regulating the liver’s production of hepcidin or reducing the ability of the intestinal lining to transport nutrients into the bloodstream) and as such, effectively managing these conditions frequently requires an extensive micronutrient workup.

Recently, I discussed the silent epidemic of chronic constipation (affecting 15–16% of adults), and the remarkable fact that almost all of it (14% of adults) is constipation that has no known cause—resulting in millions being placed on a lifetime of laxatives rather than the actual causes of their constipation being diagnosed and addressed.
Note: after publication, that article was significantly revised with additional treatments for constipation.

I would argue the situation with inflammatory bowel diseases (which affect approximately 1.17% of adults) is quite similar, as the rate of it keeps increasing. Yet, no one knows what causes it, allowing a costly status quo to perpetuate (where patients have no option except to spend thousands each year on the IBD drugs).

As such, this greatly disincentivizes research into the actual causes of them (e.g., specific pesticides and herbicides—like glyphosate—have been repeatedly linked to IBD—as have junk food diets1,2,3 and food allergies1,2). Likewise, we’ve seen numerous children who get their meningococcal vaccine for college develop Crohn’s disease but never seen this link be discussed—which may, in part, be due to Wakefield’s infamous 1998 paper showing that children who developed autism after the MMR had significant inflammatory bowel diseases (along with three earlier ones linking the measles vaccine virus to IBD1,2,3) making this topic be taboo to research further (despite numerous therapies being discovered which were able to improve autism by reducing bowel inflammation).
Note: the only research I know of on this topic was a large survey Steve Kirsch conducted, which found vaccinated children were 3.5X more likely to develop Crohn’s disease.

Likewise, one of the most common side effects of the COVID vaccines was an exacerbation of a pre-existing autoimmune disorder (e.g., an Israeli government study which found that 24.2% of those receiving a booster developed an exacerbation of a pre-existing autoimmune condition), and throughout the vaccine campaign, I saw numerous cases where this happened with IBD (including cases where vaccine supporting medical students and physicians acknowledged their issues were likely due the vaccine).

Note: the more severe a reaction is to a pharmaceutical, the rarer it is, and as such, the COVID vaccines disabled far more than they killed. While investigating the economic cost of the COVID vaccines, Ed Dowd’s team made the horrific discovery that the vaccines caused a massive spike in disability in America (16% more Americans are now disabled than they were at the start of COVID)—and this increase shows no signs of stopping (it’s actually beginning to accelerate). The above chart came from their investigation of England’s disability data (and virtually mirrors England’s increase in disability for immunological diseases).

Finally, as severe illnesses are rarer than mild ones, a much larger portion of adults are affected by chronic gut inflammation (e.g., 6.1% of Americans have irritable bowel syndrome)—with many of these disorders (e.g., leaky gut syndrome or moderate gluten sensitivity) being either understudied or outright dismissed by the medical system.
Note: we find irritable bowel disorders are frequently missed (e.g., because the scopes gastroenterologists use don’t reach much of the small intestine, and capsule endoscopies, which can do so are rarely used now). As IBD often occurs concurrently with rheumatologic disorders (particularly spondyloarthropathies), and many rheumatologic medications make IBD worse, it is often quite helpful to screen those patients for an antibody test for Crohn’s beforehand, and if positive, give them a rheumatologic drug that improves rather than worsens IBD—all of which is discussed further in this article on natural and pharmaceutical treatments for autoimmune disorders.

As such, while reviewing the literature on DMSO, I was immediately struck by the rapid and dramatic IBD improvements reported in many cases. These reports included diagnostic testing confirming complete remission of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, consistent and rapid relief of the colicky pain commonly associated with IBD, and successful treatment of an intermittent, severe colonic paralysis following colon cancer surgery alongside progressing scleroderma. Several authors specifically noted that IBD responded exceptionally well to DMSO—something one reader here also observed in their own ulcerative colitis patients.

Likewise, I periodically have exchanges like this (which I was given permission to share):

Hi! I’m desperately hoping you can help me. How would I take DMSO to help a diverticulitis flare up? Thank you so so much! I don’t trust anyone else but you!

I wrote a quick reply 19 minutes later, and then two hours and 12 minutes later received this reply.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart!!! You saved me.

Then, I asked how fast the response was:

It actually helped a lot very quickly!! I think taking it really helped to decrease the pain and inflammation.

I was ready to go to the hospital! Thank you again from the bottom of my heart!

Note: since I receive dozens of correspondences each day, I can’t respond to most of them. For this reason, I maintain monthly open threads where readers can ask any lingering questions from the previous month, and everyone else can also view the answers. Likewise, I try to answer all the questions I expect to arise in each article (e.g., 95% of the DMSO questions I receive are answered within the articles) or write new ones to address recurring questions I receive (e.g., how do you use DMSO for gastrointestinal disorders).

Umbrella Remedies

Given that DMSO is primarily thought of as a pain treatment (due to the rapid and dramatic improvement it frequently produces), it seems quite surprising that it could also create the profound bowel benefits described above. However, in medicine, there are a few therapies (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation) that have the ability to cure a wide range of diseases, and as such are referred to as “umbrella therapies.” This is because, rather than targeting a specific molecular receptor, they can address the root causes of many illnesses, such as poor circulation throughout the body, inflammation, and cells entering a state of shock where they stop functioning and eventually die.

DMSO does that, and in turn, has repeatedly been shown to be remarkably effective for a wide range of disorders including:

• Strokes, paralysis, a wide range of neurological disorders (e.g., Down Syndrome and dementia), and many circulatory disorders (e.g., Raynaud’s, varicose veins, hemorrhoids), which I discussed here.
• A wide range of tissue injuries, such as sprains, concussions, burns, surgical incisions, and spinal cord injuries (discussed here).
• Chronic pain (e.g., from a bad disc, bursitis, arthritis, or complex regional pain syndrome), which I discussed here.
• A wide range of autoimmune, protein, and contractile disorders, such as scleroderma, amyloidosis, and interstitial cystitis (discussed here).
• A variety of head conditions, such as tinnitus, vision loss, dental problems, and sinusitis (discussed here).
• A wide range of internal organ diseases, such as pancreatitis, infertility, COPD, and endometriosis (discussed here).
• A wide range of skin conditions, such as burns, varicose veins, acne, hair loss, ulcers, skin cancer, and many autoimmune dermatologic diseases (discussed here).
• Many challenging infectious conditions, including chronic bacterial infections, herpes, and shingles (discussed here).
• Many aspects of cancer (e.g., many of cancer’s debilitating symptoms, making cancer treatments more potent, greatly reducing the toxicity of conventional therapies, and turning cancer cells back into normal cells), which I discussed here.

Note: most of the above have also been shown for ultraviolet blood irradiation. Likewise, similar data exists for ozone, another umbrella remedy that I plan to focus on once the DMSO series is finished.

Additionally, DMSO possesses a unique ability to enhance the absorption and potency of pharmaceutical medications and natural therapies by facilitating their passage into the body. This property has transformed the way conventional and natural medicine is practiced, opening up nearly limitless possibilities for incredible therapeutic combinations (discussed here and here), and most importantly, DMSO is extremely safe (provided it’s used correctly).

As such, a wealth of data (detailed in the above articles) has accumulated, showing DMSO has a high rate of efficacy in a wide range of conditions. Since DMSO was widely available, it quickly spread like wildfire across America in the 1960s (particularly due to how rapidly it alleviated “incurable” pain). Regrettably, the FDA then stepped in and went to war with DMSO to protect the status quo. In the decades that followed, despite the public, the scientific community, and Congress petitioning the FDA to rescind their prohibition on DMSO, it all fell on deaf ears (all of which I chronicled here).

Eventually, the 1994 DSHEA Act (passed in response to public outrage over the FDA raiding supplement providers at gunpoint) simply took away the FDA’s ability to regulate natural medicines, and DMSO was able to re-enter the marketplace. Sadly by this time, despite thousands of studies supporting its use, many American pharmaceutical products using DMSO and it being widely used outside the United States, DMSO had become yet another forgotten side of medicine.

As what they did to DMSO has always really bothered me (particularly due to its ability to rescue people from a life of debility after strokes or spinal cord injuries), I decided to try publicizing it and do all that I could to give a strong case for its use. Fortunately, numerous readers here were willing to try it, bringing it to public consciousness, and much like the 1960s (when it first emerged) it again has rapidly caught on.

In turn, I’ve received numerous testimonials from readers around the world about the life-changing effects DMSO has had on them. Recognizing the importance of not letting these stories become forgotten, I’ve devoted a significant amount of time to compiling those I came across here—which has now totaled to over 3,000 reports of DMSO treating a wide range of conditions.

The majority of those testimonials align with the well-recognized functions of DMSO, but at the same time, I’ve received many astonishing ones, such as the diverticulitis example above. As such, this article will focus on exactly what the data shows DMSO does for the gastrointestinal system, and how many reader reports mirror what is displayed within those studies.

Note: one of DMSO’s key anticancer properties is that it causes cancer cells to differentiate (transform) into normal cells. Data also shows it can create this effect in stem cells1,2,3 and hence produce the cells needed to regenerate a damaged organ (e.g., this has been repeatedly demonstrated for the heart1,2,3,4,5,6 and kidneys1).

Stomach

I adore your substance. Your suggestion to try oral DMSO to heal my stomach issues [and my gut] is slowly but surely working. I have been seeing various docs about the issue for over 2 years now- and your suggestion was the first one to actually help! — from a retired M.D.

DMSO has been repeatedly shown to heal the stomach, stop life-threatening bleeds and modulate its function, particularly when injuries follow excess acidity:

•A study of 138 patients with chronic gastritis (stomach inflammation), duodenal ulcers (mostly in remission), or one gastric ulcer found that 50% DMSO applications to the epigastric area often reduced gastric juice volume and acidity in those with duodenal ulcers and hypersecretion, and enhanced antral mucosa neutralization in some with acidic conditions. In chronic gastritis with preserved acid secretion, the effects of DMSO varied (no change, reduced, or slightly increased secretion and acidity). In secretory insufficiency, DMSO had no stimulating effect, either unchanged or slightly reduced secretion. In short, DMSO consistently normalized excessive stomach acid production.

I have been drinking DMSO diluted in water daily for about 3 months with no known side effects…Since starting this pattern my reflux has disappeared and I am feeling great.

• In lab tests, 9% DMSO increased pepsin enzyme activity by 83.4%, lowered the Km value to 1.50 mg/mL, and altered pepsin’s molecular conformation without inhibiting aromatic amino acid absorption—hence making pepsin more effective at digesting protein.

Bleeding ulcers in the stomach and duodenum remain a major issue in medicine, with roughly 10,000 Americans dying annually from them, and around 10 billion dollars are spent each year on them. As such, DMSO’s ability to treat and prevent them is quite noteworthy:

• In 115 hospitalized patients with pelvic fractures or hypovolemic shock at risk for stress-induced gastric ulcers, 22% of 58 controls developed ulcers, compared to only 4% of 57 receiving DMSO and 3% of 62 receiving allopurinol. Notably, none of the DMSO-treated patients deteriorated or required emergency surgery, whereas 8 controls and 1 allopurinol recipient did, with 3 control patients dying.

• In 101 patients with hematemesis (coughing up blood) due to erosive gastritis, oral DMSO and allopurinol (administered every 6 hours for 5 days) resulted in 8% having further hematemesis episodes, and 9% having endoscopies showing hemorrhagic inflammation. In contrast, 29% of untreated controls had further hematemesis episodes, and 44% showed hemorrhagic inflammation. No treated patients required surgery, while three controls did, with one death.

• In 58 patients with NSAID-induced erosive gastritis, DMSO reduced re-bleeding, stabilized hemodynamics, and promoted gastric erosion healing (7% had erosions at 48 hours) compared to placebo (50% of 59 patients), with fewer patients requiring transfusions or surgery.

• In 40 patients with multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock, DMSO reduced stress-induced acute gastric mucosal injury incidence to 2.5% (1/40) compared to 23.8% (10/42) with placebo, with fewer requiring surgery.

• In rats with corrosive esophageal burns, intraperitoneal DMSO reduced stricture formation by decreasing malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin-6 levels, lowering the stenosis index and histopathologic damage scores compared to controls.

• In rats, DMSO significantly accelerated healing of reserpine- and 5-hydroxytryptamine-induced acute ischemic gastric mucosal injury, reducing injury severity over 4 days compared to placebo.

• In three separate placebo controlled rat studies, DMSO at (1%, 2%, and 5%) demonstrated significant protection from a variety of injuries to the stomach lining in a dose dependent manner. In the first, 2 days of DMSO pretreatment counteracted ischemic injuries (from reserpine or serotonin) to the gastric mucosa, with 1% DMSO reducing the injury area, 2% protecting 60-80% of the stomach (depending on the injuring agent used), and 5% fully preventing it. In the second study, DMSO prevented ethanol (alcohol) from damaging the stomach, with 1% reducing injury in 70% of rats, while 2% and 5% eliminated it entirely. In the third, 1% DMSO reducing stomach ulceration by 40%, 2% by 80% and 5% by 100% (providing complete protection).

• DMSO (2 or 5% solutions) completely protected rats against aspirin-induced gastric mucosal injury (0% incidence vs. 30% without pyloric ligation and 80% with ligation in placebo) and ethanol-induced injury (0% incidence vs. 100% in placebo), without affecting H+ output.

• In rats subjected to water-immersion stress, DMSO inhibited gastric ulcer formation. Similarly, in rats with cold-restraint stress, DMSO, allopurinol, or their combination significantly reduced lipid peroxidation and stress-induced gastric and lung injuries compared to saline controls.
Note: other studies have also shown DMSO protects against gastric stress ulceration.

Other data also corroborates DMSO’s ability to heal severe gastric conditions and support recovery in challenging cases:

• A 1968 patent application reported oral DMSO effectively treated gastrointestinal conditions: 28 patients with acute gastritis resumed work within 5–8 days, free of nausea, vomiting, and pain, with 21 remaining symptom-free after one year; 13 patients with chronic gastritis improved after 1–2 months and stayed relapse-free for a year with periodic retreatment; 5 patients with recent peptic ulcers were cured without recurrence over a year; 6 patients with enterocolitis improved after 8 days and returned to work within 2 months; and 3 patients with mucomembranous colitis were cured after 3 weeks.

• In patients with refractory gastric and duodenal ulcers unresponsive to three months of cimetidine and one month of bismuth chelate, oral DMSO achieved complete healing within four weeks with no significant side effects, compared to placebo.

• In 126 patients with healed duodenal ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection, oral DMSO reduced one-year ulcer relapse to 6%, compared to 47% with placebo and 24% with cimetidine, showing superior efficacy. No comparison between DMSO alone and DMSO with allopurinol was reported.

• In 12 patients with refractory peptic ulcers (eight duodenal, four gastric), oral DMSO achieved complete healing within four weeks, compared to placebo.

Finally, DMSO has also been shown to alter other characteristics of the stomach (e.g., it made the stomach more transparent, increasing light transmittance by 29%; it increased the stomach’s sensitivity to vagal stimulation; and at concentrations above 50%, it decreased stomach acid secretion in a dose-dependent manner).

Note: Numerous key human studies cited in this section and the next (where DMSO was often administered orally with a nasogastric tube) were conducted by a DMSO researcher in Iraq between 1990–1994, during a period when its medical system was robust before economic sanctions and conflicts disrupted Iraq’s healthcare infrastructure, a pattern also observed in Libya post-NATO intervention (where pivotal DMSO research was also previously conducted)..

Read the Whole Article

The post How DMSO Heals the Gut and Cures Gastrointestinal Diseases appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a sense all I’m ever really pointing at here is the importance of taking responsibility. Taking responsibility as westerners for the suffering and destruction inflicted upon the world by the western power structure that we live under.

To be a westerner is to live in a civilization that is powered by the abuse and exploitation of the people of the global south. Every one of us benefits directly from the way resources and labor are exploitatively extracted from nations that are held in subjugation to the western empire at the barrel of a gun. The very electronic device you are reading these words on is a testament to this reality.

We each have a moral obligation to end this abusive dynamic. We have a responsibility to oppose the mass murder, tyranny, theft and abuse which is being imposed upon the rest of the world by the nations in which we live.

This is one of the reasons why I have no patience for rightists who whine about immigrants. It is not legitimate to live in a civilization which bombs, destabilizes, exploits and extracts from the global south and then complain when the victims of the bombing, destabilization, exploitation and extraction move to your country to get away from the misery your society caused them.

Whenever I say this I get rightists telling me “It’s not OUR fault there are immigrants! It’s our leaders! They’re the ones doing this, not us!”

And to them I can only say, nah. You’re just shirking your responsibility. You’re being immature and irresponsible. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your part of the bargain here. You need to stop blaming your problems on the desperate victims of your country’s abuses, and start doing what you can to end those abuses.

Don’t whine to me about how powerless you are. You know who’s a lot less powerful than you? The immigrants you’re bitching about. The exploited, abused nations they’ve been driven from. You’ve got a hell of a lot more power to effect meaningful change than they do. They’re being blown about by the winds of circumstances which you directly benefit from. Quit your bellyaching and get to work.

Ferociously oppose genocide. Ferociously oppose war. Ferociously oppose militarism. Ferociously oppose imperialism. Stand in solidarity with the ordinary workers around the world who are being exploited by the empire under which we live. Do everything you can to wake your fellow westerners up to the reality of the empire’s abuses and help create a grassroots movement to tear it down. That’s your responsibility.

This is why I’m always dismissive of people who say “Why are you always criticizing the west? Why aren’t you talking about that evil regime over there in Asia or Africa?” Those aren’t my responsibility. I am a westerner. I live under the US-centralized western empire whose abuses dwarf those of any non-western power structure by orders of magnitude. I focus on the power structure under which I live, which also happens to be the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on earth, because that is my responsibility.

Obviously our rulers are far more culpable in the abuses of the western empire than the ordinary individuals who live here, but we in turn are far more culpable in those abuses than the non-westerners whose labor and resources are being extracted so we can have cheap stuff whenever we want it. I’m not saying this exploitation makes all westerners inherently evil, I’m just saying we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to help end an abusive situation.

We need to stop trying to offload the blame for our circumstances onto others and set to work opening eyes and fomenting a revolutionary zeitgeist. Our leaders aren’t going to cease their abuses of their own volition, so we’re going to have to find a way to force them to.

That is our duty. That is our responsibility. We will never create a healthy world and become a truly conscious species on this planet until we have gotten real about this.

________________

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

The post Westerners Have a Moral Responsibility To Help Curb the Empire’s Abuses appeared first on LewRockwell.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is communism.

During the past year I have read on various websites  articles that the West has become the Communist State that it once opposed.

Various legitimate examples are offered:  the use of law as a weapon as in Stalin’s show trials of the Bolsheviks who made the Russian Revolution;  suppression of free speech and protest as all over the Western world;  fake election results as in the 2020 US presidential election and in Europe by banning opposition candidates from running for office;  focus on “foreign enemies” instead of the domestic institutionalization of tyranny;  designation of Trump’s supporters as domestic enemies and insurrectionists.

As of yet, no one has put all of these concerns into one formula.  Allow me to try.

For 60 years liberals have transitioned the United States from merit to race and gender based entitlements.

The United States, whose foundational basis is English common law and the accountability of government achieved by the English Glorious Revolution of 1680, has been beset by progressives and liberals for many decades for being a society based on merit and equality under law.  Equality under law requires just that and thus prohibits DEI-based preferences.

A merit-based society allows and encourages those best able and qualified to take the leading positions.  But this excludes those less capable and, thereby, violates “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” which the liberal-left has raised as the new standard.  The “solution” is to put the less capable in charge. This requires demonizing merit as “racist” which has resulted in merit no longer being the requirement for admissions to Ivy League universities and formerly merit-based high schools.  Instead, admission is based on racial privilege.

Progressives and liberals since the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt have succeeded in elevating DEI above merit, today dismissed as “white  racism.” The entire purpose of  the Democrat Party is to destroy a merit-based society. Trump is hated by the liberal-left for trying to restore a merit-based society.

For the liberal-left merit is discriminatory and thereby racist.  To escape racism, DEI must supplant merit as the basis of American society.  DEI is the Democrat Party’s weapon to overthrow a merit-based society.

Communism precludes incomes, influence, and status based on merit in theory but not in practice. In practice, Communist Party membership was the ladder to upward mobility.  But for ideologues it is theory that counts. Under communism equality regardless of merit is the standard.

Capitalistic, bourgeois society is based on merit with income, influence, and status based on success.  Therefore a merit-based society precludes equal results.

A merit-based society is “unfair” in the modern parlance. A fair society is one in which merit receives no reward and is handicapped by  preferences for those who are without merit. Kurt Vonnegut describes the liberal-left ideal in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron.”  Vonnegut thought it would be 2081 before the American liberal-left would be able to establish the Cabinet Department of Handicapper General.  But the transition began in 1965 when the EEOC stood the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head and imposed racial preferences for blacks known as “affirmative action.”  These preferences were explicitly prohibited by the 1964 Civil Right Act.  But the American liberal-left elevated its ideological agenda above the law.

Such a society will, of course, be mediocre and a laggard in intellectual and cultural advancement.  But as such advancements are merit-based, they don’t count. DEI is achieved when individual achievement becomes a criminal offense against society. In Vonnegut’s story, Harrison Bergeron is shot by the Handicapper General.  I once read a science fiction story in which at a certain age children were tested for intelligence.  If their intelligence was above the norm, they were terminated.

Already today September 8th, 2025, we have laws or regulations that penalize merit-based admission, hiring, and promotion decisions and criminalize disagreement with some official narratives, such as the Holocaust.  Various Democrat cities have passed laws that give legal immunities to non-whites.

Yet the West continues to claim free speech–obviously a false claim–and to redefine equality under law as equality of  result.  

As free speech guaranteed by the American Constitution is now impermissible, how does truth survive?  As truth is impermissible, how can good decisions be made?

As recent decades have made completely clear, good decisions cannot be made in the Western world.  Enemies are created instead of peace.  Law beakers are protected while their victims are punished. Borders are undefended at the expense of the ethnic citizens of the country.

As the immigrant invasions continue, the more entitlement takes over from merit and the less Western governments represent their ethnic base.  Thus we have arrived at The Camp of the Saints.

The post Is the Western World Degenerating Into Communism? appeared first on LewRockwell.