Lew Rockwell Institute

Steele Creek Presbyterian Church.

Somehow the news that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, would soon pass the one million mark in population did not surprise me. For the past half century the city, the largest in the Tar Heel State, has longingly looked to Atlanta as something of a model, actually hoping one day to surpass it in importance and influence commercially and financially…and to leave behind forever any semblance of its history and memories as a characteristically “Southern” city.

What this has meant is that huge areas of the surrounding county, Mecklenburg, have been literally swallowed up by the encroaching metropolis. Most all traces of its rich rural history and the hardy citizens who once populated it—many whose families settled there before the Revolutionary War—seem to have disappeared, except for an occasional historical highway marker or a random mention in some business promo.

That news put me in mind of my many boyhood days in the 1950s spent with my father’s relatives in what was then a largely still-rural, still-agricultural countryside, where reminders of an earlier history yet dotted the landscape, and where folks lived on the same plots of land that their grandparents and great-grandparents had farmed.

And I also recalled the old church that had been the center around which my father’s people had gathered. For although I am a traditional Latin Mass Catholic, my Dad’s folks were hardy Scots Presbyterians who first landed in Pennsylvania in the early 1700s and then ventured south to Piedmont North Carolina. They brought with them their Protestant faith and established early on houses of worship, which became centers of their communities.

One of those was Steele Creek Presbyterian Church. Steele Creek, the second oldest church in Mecklenburg County, was founded in 1760—265 years ago.Early in the summer of 2018 Steele Creek Church closed its doors for good. The church had decided to merge with another Presbyterian Church in the area, Pleasant Hill. The Gothic revival-style brick structure was abandoned, purchased by nearby expanding Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

As late as the early 1970s Steele Creek counted 1,000 members, but the encroaching airport and the constant deafening roar of supersonic jets every moment of the day speeding off to Munich, London, Latin America and all points in between, plus the precipitous decline in the Presbyterian Church USA, which has gone the way of all mainstream Protestant denominations and embraced the liberal woke social gospel, had brought the membership down to around 350, many of them adults who held on to the memory of a Presbyterianism that once boasted of a Reverend Robert Lewis Dabney…but now could only grasp for scraps from a barren Progressivist table.

Next to the historic 1889 building is the Steele Creek Cemetery, one of the more historic burial grounds in Piedmont North Carolina, holding over 1,700 graves, the earliest from 1763, twelve years before the onset of the Revolutionary War [See: The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, 1745-1978; Third Edition, Charlotte, 1978].

Steele Creek Presbyterian Church cemetery.

In that cemetery are laid veterans of every conflict and war that the American nation has engaged in: those who served during the Revolution when the then-tiny hamlet of Charlotte served as an unwelcoming “hornet’s nest” for General Lord Cornwallis; a few who went off later to fight in Mexico or against Britain again in the early Nineteenth Century; many more who joined Confederate ranks to defend the independence and rights of North Carolina in 1861-1865; then, others who fought in the great world wars and conflicts since then. But there are others, also: husbands and wives, and children, of those who had formed up until recently a close-knit, church-oriented farming community like many spread over the Tar Heel State and the South.

Since 1777 over sixty members of my father’s family have been buried in Steele Creek’s sacred ground. Six of them are direct ancestors, including my grandfather and grandmother Cathey, my War Between the States great-grandfather, Henry Cathey [13th North Carolina Regiment], and my eight-greats grandmother, Jean, who was born in County Monaghan, Ulster, in 1692, a descendant of Scots who migrated there from Ayrshire in the early 1600s.

As a young boy I recall vividly attending the funeral of my grandfather, Charlton Graham Cathey (1958), in the old sanctuary and the impressive minister John McAlpine who comforted my grandmother who would pass on four years later in 1962, aged almost 98.

Those events remain engraved in my memory, even to the point of recalling the Protestant hymns sung—“How Firm a Foundation” and “Blessed Assurance,” two of granddad’s favorites.

But most of all, I remember that remarkable church, its strong and impressive brick structure, that aura associated with and radiated by it, which deeply connected it to the history of old Mecklenburg County, to North Carolina, and to the land and families who settled nearby, and for which it was the center of their lives for generations.

The cemetery remains in church hands, despite the shrinking congregation having departed. It is too historic, so despite some earlier efforts by the airport authority to have the graves moved, it will remain where it is for the foreseeable future. But the old 1889 structure, its brick walls and interior now silent, is deserted, owned by the airport, serving only as a disappearing memory for those who care to recall what it once meant to so many. Although the city originally designated the remaining church structure a protected historical landmark, just recently the city altered that status and expropriated twenty-three nearby acres for industrial development.

In 1904 essayist and polyglot Henry Adams, scion of the fastly extinguishing Adams family of Massachusetts, authored a marvelous little volume, Mont Saint Michel and Chartres. In it he contrasted the accomplishments of the modern age, its spirit and objectives, with those of the high Middle Ages, in particular the great works of sublime architecture created during that period. While for modernity its symbol was the dynamo, the unthinking, whirring and cold mechanical devices increasingly dominating the landscape, for the Middle Ages its endearing symbol was the Blessed Virgin, Holy Mary, whose sublime tenderness and inexhaustible love for the Faithful inspired such miraculous structures as Chartres Cathedral. Adams expresses this with a certain irony, contrasting our modern fascination with and hypnotization by machines (and now with an inhuman, impersonal technology) with the Blessed Virgin as Heavenly Queen whose centrality, reality and endless bounty are manifested exuberantly in such cathedrals. Noting the devotion to Her as our champion before the Throne of God he writes: “True it was, although one should not say it jestingly, that the Virgin embarrassed the Trinity; and perhaps this was the reason, behind all the other excellent reasons, why men loved and adored her with a passion such as no other deity has ever known …” And why she sparked such incredible creativity which mirrored that devotion and faith.

Steele Creek Church still stands as the supersonic machines speed off overhead from Douglas airport to Europe, Latin America, or maybe Cancun. In a way, like Chartres compared to the modern dynamo, there is no greater contrast than what has happened to the million-person city of Charlotte, and the remembrance of a heritage and inheritance that Steele Creek incarnated and reminds us of. Modern Charlotte and its airport make stark comparisons with the haunted walls and ancient graveyard of Steele Creek. For in the bustle of the metropolis and the incessant noise of the jets there is little memory of who we were as a people, little connection to our rich historic culture.

In the late 1950s “the Queen City” that I remember as a boy was where older families yet predominated, where my father’s people were neighbors to the families of Billy Graham and Randolph Scott, where folks could recall the area’s history. Charlotte and Mecklenburg County were still linked strongly to their traditions. Now Charlotte rivals Atlanta as a mega-metropolis, and a soul-less anthill of business, banking and international commerce, with little room for heritage, except as a veneer to attract an occasional tourist not going to a Carolina Panthers game or to some big event at the coliseum.

I forget who said it—perhaps Faulkner, maybe Louis Rubin, I cannot remember—but that if he had known what Atlanta would become today, then he would wish that Sherman had torched it more thoroughly. Given what Charlotte has become, perhaps the same sentiment might be uttered?

The last major portions of farmland out near the Catawba River that had belonged to my dad’s family since 1750 are now sold to developers and strip malls. The pre-Revolutionary War house that my father was born in back in 1908 (the last of his family to do so) is now, thankfully, preserved at the Historic Latta Plantation. But the whole region has changed radically, altered and almost unrecognizable and discordant to my memories of sixty-five years ago. Hundreds of thousands of transplants (many from up North) now make Charlotte and its suburbs home and live—if you can call it that—the frenzied life of our tawdry, commercialized age.

I am put in mind of the great Southern Regionalist writer, Donald Davidson, in his epic poem, “The Tall Men”:

This is Rupert of the House
Of Rupert, famed in history,
Pondering on his income tax,
Deducting genealogy.
Great-grandfather from a loophole
Potted Choctaws in the thicket;
Rupert, menaced by the Reds,
Scratches the Democratic ticket.
[….]
Rupert, mounting in his car
Zooms up to God in Rotary.
Grandma Rupert had ten children;
Rupert’s father begot five.
All of Rupert’s stocks and bonds
Are strained to keep one son alive.
Democracy, a fuddled wench,
Is bought from tousled bed to bed.
Bass voices in white vests defile
The echoes of great voices dead.

There are remnants of the old culture that survive, a few, but they are fast being overtaken by a triumphant “Yankee” culture which Robert Lewis Dabney warned about 150 years ago, the fear that we would, as he said, become like our conquerors of 1865. Dabney, the Old Light Presbyterian divine that he was, declared that his role was like that of Cassandra at Troy, to prophesy and speak truth, but not to be believed until too late.

My mentor Russell Kirk once told me while we were discussing the old South and the changes being inflicted on her from both without and within that “it is hard to love the gasoline station where the honeysuckle used to grow.”

Steele Creek Church and its cemetery remind us who we are and who we have been. Despite being passed by and deserted, those gravestones cry out to those who would listen and take heed.

Perhaps, then, for those who do, our watchword could be from Spanish philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno in his volume, The Tragic Sense of Life: “Our life is a hope which is continually converting itself into memory and memory in its turn begets hope.”

Is this not, then, our challenge, to keep both memory and hope alive?

The post Chartres Cathedral, the Cemetery, and the City of Charlotte appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Ukrainian army has lost control over the Pokrovsk / Myrnograd agglomeration. Russian forces had over months slowly enveloped the cities from the east and the west. The corridor leading out of it was put under Russian drone control. Any vehicle trying to pass through was attacked.

bigger

The Ukrainian leadership had thrown any reserves it had to reopen the corridor to the city. All such attempts were destined to fail. A last Hail Mary move was the helicopter insertion of a dozen special forces commanded by the Military Intelligence Service GRU.

Ukraine lands special forces in embattled Pokrovsk, sources say – Reuters, Oct 3 2025

Ukraine landed special forces to fight in embattled parts of the eastern city of Pokrovsk earlier this week, just as Russia said it had surrounded Kyiv’s forces in the area, two Ukrainian military sources said on Friday.
…
The Ukrainian special forces landed in a Black Hawk helicopter a few days ago in the operation, which was complicated by Russian drone activity, a source in the 7th Rapid Response Corps said.

The operation was overseen by military spy chief Kyrylo Budanov, and the troops headed to areas of the city claimed by Russia and seen by Moscow as vital for Ukrainian supply lines, the other source said.

At least 10 servicemen could be seen dismounting from a helicopter in a field in a video seen by Reuters. The news agency could not independently confirm the location or date when the video was filmed.

A video of the helicopter insertion is here

Other videos, according to AMK mapping, show that none of the inserted soldiers survived:

Based on the geolocations I did of the Russian FPV drone strikes on Ukrainian special forces, and additional analysis of the footage, we can now deduce where the soldiers ran after being dropped off by the helicopter behind Russian lines.

A group of 11 soldiers were dropped off at the specified point (48.29667, 37.13317) and split off into two groups.

Five soldiers ran towards the forest next to the O0525 Highway and then towards the gas station on the edge of the industrial zone. Three were hit by a drone strike after being caught in the forest along the way, and the two survivors attempted to make a run for the gas station but were hit by another drone when crossing the fields.

Six soldiers ran south from the landing spot and split up as they approached the industrial zone. Four ran southwest into the forest towards the substation, but three were hit by a drone. The fourth soldier escaped back to the edge of the forest before also being hit by a drone while hiding under a tree. As for the other two soldiers from this group, they were able to enter the first building of the industrial zone and hid in a room on the ground floor. Three drones then flew in through the windows, with two striking them.

So, knowing all this info, it seems that all 11 soldiers were killed or wounded in these attacks. Evacuations of any survivors are unlikely due to their presence behind Russian lines, and they will likely be captured by Russian troops.

The fact that the insertion was leaked to Reuters points to an attempt to accuse General Budanov of a reckless waste of men.
As Strana reports (machine translation):

Ukrainian “Suspilnoye” also writes, citing sources, that the assault groups of the Main Intelligence Directorate entered areas of the city that “are of strategic importance for Ukrainian logistics” and where the Russians had previously entered.

The operation involves “several helicopters”, and Budanov is near Pokrovsk to direct the actions of the GUR, the newspaper writes.

Ukraine has not officially confirmed this.

Why, if not to denigrate Budanov, would anyone leak this to the press?

Another soldier, Stanislav Bunyatov, is outraged by the release of a video of the landing of special forces.

“The problem is that one degenerate sent a video to another degenerate, and the third degenerate leaked the fact of landing, the landing site to the Internet and created a demand for the destruction of special forces and hunting for these helicopters. Do you think that after this, it will be possible to evacuate the fighters from the battlefield with a”bird”? I hope that the published video will not be ignored, and the perpetrators will be brought to serious responsibility,” he wrote.

Russian military publics showed their video of the alleged flight of two GUR helicopters to Pokrovsk. They also specify that the landing party landed in an industrial zone in the north-western part of the city, through which the Pokrovsk garrison is supplied.

At the same time, the “DPR” reports that part of the landed special forces was destroyed (Russian media quoted Igor Kimakovsky, an adviser to Pushilin).

Budanov is known for planing and executing terror attacks in Russia.

He is also known for reckless operations which have killed many of his men. Last year the special forces of the GRU made three boat assault attempts to capture the Russian controlled Zaparozhia Nuclear Power Plant. Some 50 Ukrainian soldiers got killed when all three attempts failed.

The Ukrainian (former) President Vladimir Zelenski and his political operator Andrei Yermak see Budanov as a potential competitor in future elections. It would not be astonishing to learn that the leak of the failed helicopter insertion was initiated by them.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine – Hail Mary Operation To Unblock Pokrovsk Has Failed appeared first on LewRockwell.

ASEAN is quite a delicate geopolitical entity: gracious, polite and consensual but at the same time, always privileging its “centrality”. The collective 11 Southeast Asians (East Timor is the new member) are very serious global players – with a GDP of $3.8 trillion, and constantly rising.

On a personal level, when I decided to move from the West to Asia, in 1994, I chose Southeast Asia: then, it was imperative to follow the Asian “tigers” – or flock of geese – with the Big Goose, China, flying right behind them.

Kishore Mahbubani, the former Singapore ambassador to the UN and dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, has been the paramount analyst of ASEAN over the years, including in his must-read The ASEAN Miracle. There was never a miracle: it was a matter of hard work and combined geopolitical/geoeconomic savvy.

As chair of ASEAN in 2025, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim – one of the most capable diplomats on the planet – had a very tough job; to conduct a smooth, well balanced and productive summit in Kuala Lumpur projecting that notorious ASEAN unity while significantly advancing trade and cooperation within ASEAN and with external partners.

He did pull it off – riding the Trump tariff blitzkrieg with flying colors.

Predictably Western mainstream media had only one provincial, obsessive focus: Trump in Asia. The media circus could not be more predictable – but Anwar let it flow. Trump presided over the – shaky – deal between Thailand and Cambodia, officially known as the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords; that calls for the demilitarisation of the extremely tense Thai-Cambodia border, expanding on a ceasefire reached in July – and brokered by Malaysia, not the US.

The decades-long border problem between these two ASEAN neighbors is virtually intractable: it focuses over different interpretations of colonial-era maps, and how and where to settle everything. Thailand does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). That’s Cambodia’s preference. Thailand wants a bilateral deal through a Joint Boundary Commission.

Cunning Ways to “Diversity” From China

Trump came and went, but the meat of the matter remains what’s cookin’ between ASEAN and China – the group’s number one trade partner: bilateral trade last year reached $771 billion.

Both China and ASEAN are key players in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – the top trading bloc on the planet, covering 30% of global GDP. Anwar hosted an RCEP summit the day before they signed an upgrade to their wide-ranging free trade agremment, with emphasis on digital and green economy.

It’s no wonder that for Beijing, ASEAN is a matter of supreme importance. The Trump tariff blitzkrieg was essentially directed at both.

Cut to the 28th ASEAN + 3 summit, part of the Kuala Lumpur proceedings. Chinese Premier Li Qiang was adamant on the need to strengthen the alignment of their development strategies, as cooperation between ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea continues to deepen – in industrial and supply chains. Beijing once again stressed the need to “safeguard the multilateral trading system.”

Russia was also a key presence in Kuala Lumpur, as part of the East Asia summit. Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk emphasized Moscow’s growing partnership with ASEAN in nuclear technology, logistics and of course trade. It’s not by accident that in every forum in Russia, President Putin stresses that the fastest growing regions in the world right now are Africa and Southeast Asia. Hence ASEAN’s centrality in the Russian “pivot to Asia”.

In the Kuala Lumpur corridors, in bilateral and multilateral discussions, of course the main theme had to be the Trump tariff tantrum and its deeply disturbing effects on supply chains. But, as a Thai entrepreneur observed, it was also clear that small and medium-sized companies across ASEAN are starting to regroup.

The garment sector all across ASEAN was severely punished. Trump tariff blitzkrieg imposed 19% on nearly all of Malaysia’s exports to the US. That’s among the lowest rates in ASEAN – roughly the same with Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia. Yet with Laos and Myanmar it was much worse: 40%. Add to it an American obsession with trans-shipment – as in the rerouting of made in China products via ASEAN, also to be mercilessly tariffed.

So one of the solutions for loads of manufacturers is to “diversify” from China. That’s a tricky proposition – very well explained in this analysis when it comes to booming Vietnam, which expects to grow by a whopping 10% next year.

Essentially, lots of Chinese and foreign companies significantly relocated to Vietnam even before the tariff tsunami. That’s predictable: Vietnam has a young, ultra-motivated, very well educated, hard-working workforce, and it’s close to China in connectivity corridors, culture, customs and also institutionally.

The numbers tell a fascinating story. China exports over $150 billion a year to Vietnam and imports $97 billion. That means that China’s capacity to absorb Made in Vietnam goods is now at over 82% of the US market, and imports from Vietnam keep growing. Vietnam won’t do anything to alienate China.

Moreover, China already has a nearly $60 billion trade surplus with Vietnam – and counting, while its labor costs remain lower than in the US, the EU and Japan. China’s exports to Vietnam are most of all high-quality, low-cost goods, many processed in Vietnam before being exported to the US and the EU.

So China’s supply chain is the absolute key factor when it comes to Vietnam’s trade surplus with both the US and the EU. The bottom line: for Hanoi, the Chinese market is way more essential than the US market.

All Aboard the Yuanization High-Speed Train

And that brings us to the fundamental theme discreetly but enthusiastically discussed in Kuala Lumpur – and beyond: the renewed drive for the Yuanization of Planet Earth.

Everyone – ASEAN +3, RCEP – is fully aware that the People’s Bank of China announced the full connection of its yuan digital cross-border settlement system to the ASEAN 11 plus 6 nations in West Asia, discreetly byapassing the US dollar.

Talk about strategic patience. In fact CIPS, the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payments System, may soon offer payment settlements to most of the Global South.

CIPS has already processed ¥52 trillion (roughly $7 trillion) in settlements overall, overtaking clumsy SWIFT in several ultra-strategic connectivity corridors. For example, 95% of Russia-China trade – and counting – is now settled in their own currencies.

Of course there are problems. The digital yuan may not be an all-around solution – yet – because there’s no liquidity. It is rarely available outside Hong Kong.

Yet a lot of players trying to escape the threats and tariff tantrum tsunamis will start to pay serious attention. Digital yuan settlements take a matter of only 7 to 8 seconds. Moreover, they allow for transaction tracking and automated enforcement of anti-money laundering laws. Compare it to archaic SWIFT – where delays of up to 5 days are practically the norm.

Last year, the volume of yuan settlements across six ASEAN nations, including Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, reached 5.8 trillion yuan – 120% more than in 2021.

The digital yuan was key in New Silk Roads/Belt and Road Inititave (BRI) projects across ASEAN such as the China-Laos high-speed railway and the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway – combined with the Beidou navigation system and quantum communication technologies. That’s the Chinese Digital Silk Road in effect – with the digital yuan arguably working as the top strategic BRI tool.

So, in a nutshell, China is already creating a loop of yuan payments across Southeast Asia; and at the same time is officially rewiring its massive financial system to trade globally bypassing the US dollar. No wonder the Empire of Chaos has gone berserk.

This article was originally published on Sputnik News.

The post How ASEAN Keeps Its Centrality Between China & US appeared first on LewRockwell.

Six weeks ago, President Trump was scheduled to give remarks on the potential causes of autism. Shortly beforehand, the press became aware that Trump would focus on the link between Tylenol and autism, resulting in the national media collectively ridiculing that link immediately before the press conference.

In that press conference, Trump stated he had felt very strongly about bringing attention to vaccines and autism for 20 years, that he felt we were giving too many shots too quickly, and that they needed to be spaced out. There was no reason to give the hepatitis B vaccine prior to children being 12 (which, as I showed here, is true), and Tylenol increases the risk of autism, so if possible, it should be avoided during pregnancy, and you should not give it to infants.

Secretary Kennedy added that some 40 to 70% of mothers who have children with autism believe a vaccine injured their child, and that President Trump believes we should be listening to these mothers instead of gaslighting them—something many of us never expected we would hear in our lifetimes from the Federal government.

Note: regrettably, to show they believed in “Science”, pregnant mothers began quickly posting videos of themselves taking large amounts of Tylenol (which I compiled on  here—including a tragic overdose).

Over-the-Counter Pain Management

Because of how uncomfortable pain is, pain treatments have long been a core market in medicine. Remarkably however, most standard pain therapies have serious issues and often lead patients to needing more and more severe interventions.

Typically, the first-line treatment for pain is an over-the-counter medication, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol), ibuprofen (Advil or Motrin), naproxen (Aleve), aspirin, or topical diclofenac (Voltaren gel). Unfortunately, these medications all have dose-dependent toxicity and typically only elicit partial improvement in pain.

Many consider NSAIDs (ibuprofen and naproxen) amongst the most hazardous drugs in the U.S. because:

• They are the leading cause of drug-related hospital admissions—often due to heart attacks, strokes, bleeding, and kidney failure (e.g., at least 107,000 Americans are admitted to hospitals each year for NSAID GI bleeds).

• Kidney damage is a significant risk. One study found a 20% increased risk of kidney disease from NSAIDs; others found up to 212%. Amongst kidney failure patients, 65.7% were found to be chronic NSAID users.

• NSAIDs raise cardiovascular risks. NSAIDS also increase the risk of heart attacks and death (e.g., extensive studies have found between a 24-326% increase1,2,3). Two of the worst ones, Vioxx (Merck) and Celebrex (Pfizer), were designed to reduce stomach bleeding but instead caused heart attacks and strokes. Merck hid data on Vioxx’s risks; eventually it was withdrawn after an estimated 120,000 deaths. Celebrex, still on the market, has been linked to 75,000 deaths. Merck’shandling of Vioxx later informed how pharma pushed the HPV vaccine and mRNA vaccines.

• Gastrointestinal bleeding is common and often fatal. In 1999, over 16,000 Americans died from it. NSAIDs also cause small bowel damage in over 50% of chronic users—often undetected—leading to “small bowel enteropathy” and possibly chronic illness through gut permeability.

• They impair healing, especially of ligaments, creating long-term re-injury risk.

Note: the dangers of NSAIDs are discussed further here.

The poor efficacy of OTC pain medications, along with their significant toxicity, was one of the primary reasons I spent the last year trying to bring attention to DMSO, which is dramatically more effective than any other over the counter option (e.g., I compiled extensive literature demonstrating that here, and have received well over a thousand reports from readers saying it produced miraculous improvements in pain)—and more more importantly does not have the major safety issues seen with most over the counter pain killers.

Note: I am currently working on an article about DMSO’s uses for genitourinary conditions (e.g., menstrual or prostate issues, infertility, erectile dysfunction, UTIs or cystitis). If you have had any DMSO experiences with them you can share (e.g., by replying to this), that would greatly help the readership here.

Tylenol Toxicity

Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol) is generally considered safer than NSAIDs, though it too is often ineffective for severe pain. When metabolized, it produces the metabolite NAPQI (N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine), which is highly toxic to liver cells because it irreversibly binds to essential cellular proteins.

Typically, relatively little NAPQI is produced and is quickly neutralized by liver glutathione. However, when too much Tylenol is taken, the other detoxification pathways get saturated, glutathione stores get used up, and rapid liver death from unneutralized NAPQI ensues.

As a result, Tylenol overuse leads to 56,000 ER visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths annually in America.

Additionally, Tylenol has several other major issues:

• NAPQI is also toxic to the kidneys, and in 1-2% of overdose cases, the kidneys are also damaged.

• Numerous studies have linked gastrointestinal side effects to the use of Tylenol.

• In one review, Tylenol was found to increase the risk of: bleeding or perforated peptic ulcers (+6–121%), heart failure (+9–98%), myocardial infarction (+0–73%), hypertension (+7–62%), and chronic renal failure (+19–129%).

• A systematic review identified data suggesting chronic Tylenol use increased blood pressure, increased asthma (a possible 15% increase), and caused a 3.6-3.7 increase in gastric bleeding.

• Tylenol has been associated with an increased risk of blood cancers: +16% from low use and +84% from high use.

• In children of mothers chronically using Tylenol, a review found the following increases: hyperkinetic disorder (+37%), ADHD medication use (+29%), autism spectrum disorder with hyperkinetic symptoms (+51%), and asthma in offspring from frequent use in late pregnancy (+110%).

• A recent systematic review of 46 studies conducted on the risk of Tylenol during pregnancy causing neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) in offspring found that the majority of studies detected an increased risk, those of higher quality were more likely to detect the association, and the increase was dose-dependent. The increased NDDs included autism, ADHD, and other NDDs affecting learning, social/motor skills, attention, cognition, emotions, and behavior.

Note: this study is arguably the most definitive proof that Tylenol is not safe during pregnancy and was the one Trump and RFK’s team highlighted at their recent vaccine announcement.

All of this led to a rather peculiar media phenomenon:

Note: numerous internal documents and public statements have shown that by 2017, Tylenol’s manufacturer was well aware of the drug’s link to autism.

Treating Fevers

A standard hospital procedure is for nurses to check patients’ vital signs every few hours, and if anything is abnormal, contact the supervising doctor. One of my continual challenges was telling nurses I did not want to treat fevers—something which doctors had diametrically opposed views on, with the majority wanting to treat fevers. I was quite astonished to see the head of the FDA speak out against this practice:

Why Do We Treat Fevers?

There are a few justifications for treating fevers:

1. Fevers significantly increase metabolic demand on the body, placing additional stress on vital organs. In ICU settings where organ functions are compromised, reducing metabolic demand may prolong survival—though it’s acknowledged that fevers aid in eliminating infections. There is no clear consensus within critical care on how fevers should be managed.
Note: Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation, a potent therapy for infectious diseases that also treats a variety of other conditions and often appears to “re-energize” the body, as a myriad of poorly functioning systems resume their normal function during a UVBI session. I mention this as one of the primary “side effects” of UVBI is that when it eliminates an infection it will often create a fever.

2. High fevers can cause brain damage. Hyperpyrexia is defined as a medical emergency, with thresholds ranging from 105.8°F to 106.7°F. According to Penn State, brain damage generally won’t occur unless the fever exceeds 107.6°F.

3. In children, fevers can sometimes lead to seizures. However, a 2017 Cochrane review found that fever-reducing medications provide no benefit for preventing febrile seizures, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against this practice.

4. To reduce the discomfort of the fever (the primary reason most Tylenol is prescribed).

Arguments Against Treating Fevers:

1. Fevers provide valuable diagnostic information about new or recurring infections.
Note: in infants, unexplained fevers over 100° often warrant a (justified) immediate evaluation for sepsis—which is one of many reasons why the (fever-causing) newborn hepatitis B vaccine is so problematic.

2. Relapsing fevers characterize certain autoimmune and infectious diseases, so, if a fever is artificially suppressed, the diagnostic signal is lost.

3. The body relies upon fevers to eliminate illness, and in some trials, suppressing fevers extends the duration of illness.

4. As Tylenol has systemic toxicity and reduces liver function and glutathione (necessary to detoxify toxins), this can potentially worsen certain illnesses or increase the likelihood a vaccine will cause autism.

5. Suppressing febrile illnesses transforms them into more severe infections.

Of these, the fifth is the least appreciated and hence will be expanded upon.

The 1918 Influenza

In December 2019, I became aware of COVID-19 and became very worried that it would cause serious problems. We spent January and February studying a variety of resources, including literature from the 1918 pandemic that provided critical insights for treating COVID-19 (and saved the lives of those in our close circle).

Note: I consider the 1918 influenza pandemic one of the most deadly and devastating pandemics in history. Over 2.5% of those infected died (with much higher rates ranging from 12%-90% in Native American populations). Since most of the treatments tried failed, the few that worked were quite noteworthy to me.

Throughout that literature, many clinicians treating the infection stated that using aspirin on patients’ fevers significantly increased their risk of dying and that those who had previously been treated with aspirin tended to have the poorest response to the therapies, which otherwise worked for the illness.

Note: at that time, doctors routinely used large aspirin doses which are known to be toxic.

Since that time, fevers have been recognized as critically important in fighting infections. Some of the key pathways include:

• Fevers boost the activity of immune cells like neutrophils, monocytes, and T-cells
• Fevers promote type I interferon responses that inhibit viral replication
• Fevers trigger heat shock proteins to activate immune defenses
• Fevers work synergistically with stressors like iron deprivation to amplify damage to pathogens
• Fevers slow pathogen growth early, helping to control infections

During COVID, I had multiple conversations with people where I advised them against suppressing fevers with Tylenol or ibuprofen. Still, they did anyway, then decompensated and had to go to the ER. I found that heating someone who was acutely ill (particularly with infrared mats) often made them feel significantly better immediately, and no longer want fever medication. From this, I formed the hypothesis that the discomfort associated with fevers results not from the heat itself, but rather from the strain the body undergoes in trying to heat itself.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Does Natural Medicine Caution Against Suppressing Fevers? appeared first on LewRockwell.

I am more confident that Putin’s reasonableness, his politeness, his nonresponse to provocations have greatly widened the conflict with Ukraine, which in reality is a conflict with the West, and are leading directly to a much wider and more serious conflict. My confidence in my position has increased because I have just read an article by Alexander Dugin who in my opinion is Russia’s best thinker.  Indeed, he should be the President of Russia or at least the Foreign Minister.

Putin chose nonaggressive response to Western provocations in order not to confirm the propaganda that he was out to rebuild the Soviet Empire and in order to build trust so that the matter of Russia’s insecurity with NATO on Russia’s border could be addressed.  Unfortunately, as I and Alexander Dugin realize, Putin’s approach to communication does not work with Trump and the West. Putin’s soft approach to communication is read by Trump and the West as weakness.  When Putin and Lavrov say, “We are open to dialogue,” the West thinks Russia lacks the strength to continue the war.  Consequently Washington and Europe treat Russia as a subordinate rather than as a great military power.  As Dugin says, Trump and Europe perceive Putin’s politeness as weakness, Putin’s reasonableness as cowardice, Putin’s willingness to negotiate as capitulation.  Dugin, like myself, is convinced that Washington and Europe must be disabused of this erroneous perception that Putin’s reasonableness is weakness instead of an attempt to build confidence so the real issue–the threat to Russia’s security–can be addressed.

Putin’s well-meaning attempt has failed.  As Dugin says,  “Trump, convinced that it’s enough to press, threaten, or raise his voice for the conflict in Ukraine to end,” demands a cease fire that he can wave as another “peace victory.” Trump is in a hurry, which makes it impossible to find common ground in real negotiations in place of Trump’s dictate to Russia of the terms of settlement.

Dugin concludes that it is past time to disabuse the West and the White House of their notion of Russian weakness with a slap in the face, a demonstration of force that will bring Washington, Europe and the UK to the realization that their policy toward Russia is bringing them annihilation. 

Putin’s mistake was believing that there is good will in Washington and Europe  that his patience could arouse and result in a mutual security agreement  before the unrelenting pressures on Russia resulted in another of the West’s unnecessary wars, perhaps this time the final one.

Putin’s pacific approach has resulted in the West disregarding Putin’s warnings with skepticism and disbelief.  Dugin concludes, “Rational arguments are exhausted. The West must be made to fear.”  The West, Dugin says, believes in force, so Russia must show them the dangers of Russia’s strength.

My view for years has been that the longer Putin waits before he puts down the Russian foot, the more powerful the Russian response must be.  If Putin waits much longer, he will have to launch his nuclear super weapons.

The problem that Putin faces was brought to him by the West.  It is his response that is in question.  It is apparent to me, to Alexander Dugin, to Gilbert Doctorow that Putin has stuck with an incorrect response for too long, and Putin’s incorrect response is leading to nuclear war that will destroy the Western World and possibly the planet Earth.

Here is Dugin’s article.  Experience an intelligence that can be found nowhere in the Western media or foreign policy circles. I am also encouraged that Dugin agrees with me that there should be a Russian-Chinese mutual security agreement–I would include Iran–as such an agreement would disabuse Washington that its wars can be sequenced.

The post Putin’s Attempt To Be Reasonable Has Failed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Prince Andrew shall no longer be called Prince Andrew. He is now just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Buckingham Palace made the announcement this week.

The Royals released a statement saying that Andrew will lose his “prince” title and be forced to leave his Royal Lodge home in Windsor. The statement suggests they believe the allegations that he committed sexual assault are true. From the announcement:

These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him. Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

Revealed in Memoir

The move comes just days after the release of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice. Giuffre accused Andrew of sexually assaulting her when she was 17 after being trafficked to him by Jeffrey Epstein. She died in April of this year; her family said she committed suicide after the “toll of abuse … became unbearable.” Giuffre said she was involved in three sexual encounters with Prince Andrew. One of those times was during an orgy with Epstein and eight other minors.

Andrew had always denied Giuffre’s allegations. But he also paid out a reportedly handsome settlement in 2022. The amount was not disclosed, but reports say it came out to about £12 million ($16.3 million).

Giuffre’s family members were glad to hear the news about Andrew. Her brother, Sky Roberts, and his wife, Amanda Roberts, issued a statement to People magazine, saying, “Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.”

DOJ Stalling

The decision by the Royals to banish Andrew will likely revive scrutiny stateside against the Justice Department (DOJ) for what many believe is a blatant refusal to be fully transparent. The FBI released a statement in June announcing that it was essentially closing the Epstein case. It concluded that Epstein did indeed kill himself, that no list of clients who paid for sex with minors exists, and that there is no “credible evidence” that he blackmailed powerful people. The memo triggered a torrent of backlash, especially from President Donald Trump’s base. Ever since, the Republican-controlled Congress has tried to tamp down the outrage by releasing thousands of documents through the House Oversight Committee. Odd thing to do after the DOJ announced there was nothing more to see.

The flame of public ire burned hot for a few months after the DOJ’s memo, but has died down over the last month. Nevertheless, it’s unlikely to stay that way. The special election of radical Democrat Adelita Grijalva in September has secured Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) the votes he needs to force a discharge petition on a vote to release all DOJ files on Epstein. Massie has criticized the Oversight Committee’s release as a sneaky way for the Trump DOJ to curate what comes out and what doesn’t. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of the discharge petition once the government shutdown ends.

Jes Staley

Massie, during a House committee hearing on oversight of the FBI in September, dropped the name of another alleged Epstein client and indicated he knew the identities of 19 more. He named Jes Staley, a former banking executive who worked with Epstein when he was a client of JPMorgan. The Virgin Islands has sued JPMorgan, Staley’s former employer and Epstein’s former bank, and accused Staley himself of funneling Epstein’s money. The lawsuit revealed emails that suggested “that Staley may have been involved in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation,” according to reports about the suit. Court documents said Epstein shared photos of young women with Staley. The two had also a discussion that appeared to use Disney characters as code.

Staley has never been charged with sexual crimes. However, he was nevertheless “forced out at Barclays in 2021 as the Financial Conduct Authority, the UK-equivalent of the Securities and Exchange Commission, launched an investigation into allegations that Staley misled the agency and the Barclays board about his dealings with Epstein,” according to reports.

Massie Still Fighting

In early September, Massie and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) held a press conference with eight other alleged Epstein victims. That’s when one of them, Lisa Phillips, said they were going to release their own list. “We know the names,” she said. “Many of us were abused by them. Now, together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know, who are regularly in the Epstein world. It will be done by survivors, and for survivors.” Afterward, Massie said he would work with the victims to release the names, lest they all be sued into oblivion.

The Royals’ decision to banish Andrew only piles onto the already high stack of evidence suggesting there is much more to Epstein’s operation. It bolsters the raging suspicions that Epstein provided minors for sex to very powerful people. He almost certainly did not traffic only to himself, and almost certainly did traffic to other high-profile figures. It is a stunning display of audacity by the DOJ to continue to pretend it has no credible evidence suggesting otherwise.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post ‘Prince’ Andrew Stripped of Title and Banished Over Epstein Relations appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week, Peter joined David Lin to discuss recent action in markets and politics. He starts by explaining why the global rush into gold is not a speculative fad but a structural shift in the monetary system. He then lays out the market evidence, the historical context, and the fiscal realities that, in his view, make gold a logical hedge against currency debasement and a warning light for what comes next.

He begins by comparing gold’s latest run to the history books, noting that central banks are not buying gold as a speculative bet, but to re-establish gold as monetary backing for their currencies:

They’re buying gold to restore gold as the monetary backing of their currency. And this, I think, is a major transformation in the global monetary system. I think it’s on the order of, or maybe bigger than what happened in the 1970s when we went off the gold standard. And so the world went from having the US dollar backed by gold as the reserve to just having a fiat currency as the reserve. That was a significant shift in the monetary order.

Peter points to a stark historical metric: measured in real money (gold), US equities have collapsed over decades, and even collecting coins outperformed stocks once dividends and real returns are considered:

Given the fact that just holding gold in a shoebox beat the Dow, and I’m not talking about just the price, it actually beat the return because the dividend yield has been pretty low over these years. You actually did better just holding a gold coin. And so I guess, given that, I think Wall Street finally recognizes that yes, gold has a place in your portfolio. And if that’s the case, well, this rally has a long way to go because that means a lot of investors have a lot of gold they need to buy.

He connects that shift to the unsustainable fiscal path of the United States, arguing the federal government cannot honestly repay its liabilities without dramatic currency debasement:

But I think what’s even more significant is a long overdue realization that the US cannot possibly repay its debt, honestly, that the national debt, which is now 38 trillion, and of course that’s just the bonded debt, not with all the unfunded liabilities, but the treasuries that a lot of foreign central banks own, there’s no way the US government can repay that debt in money that isn’t dramatically debased, meaning that the US government will not be able to raise sufficient tax revenue to make good on its obligations. The Fed is gonna have to print the money.  

Peter is skeptical of government-directed investment and the political incentives that drive where taxpayer money is sent, noting that public officials lack the downside that private investors face:

But when the government is allocating capital, it’s not doing it for those reasons because it’s not allocating your own money. I mean, when Donald Trump decides to put taxpayer money into an investment, it doesn’t cost him anything if it goes sour, right? Remember with Solyndra, right? If you’re investing somebody else’s money and you have no skin in the game, what the hell do you care? So now you start to be guided by politics, right? Which companies is the president investing in? What is he getting under the table to allocate taxpayer money to these investments?

He closes by tying the fiscal and monetary paths together: the only realistic stopper for widespread banking distress, he argues, is massive money printing — and that outcome points to a dollar and sovereign debt crisis, the very signal gold is already sending:

But that is the environment that we’re in. And it’s going to get a lot worse. And I think the only way that we’re not going to see widespread failure in the banking system is if we have massive money printing. And so that’s going to ultimately cause a dollar and sovereign debt crisis. And again, that is what gold is telling you. Gold is the monetary canary in the coal mine.

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post Gold Is the Canary in the Coal Mine appeared first on LewRockwell.

The New York Times has just published an excellent editorial on the dangerous direction in which America is headed under President Trump. It is entitled “Are We Losing Our Democracy?” The editorial lists 12 factors pointing toward America’s slide into authoritarianism. I highly recommend reading it.

Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment are now accelerating America’s slide into authoritarianism with their violent and deadly regime-change operations in Venezuela. Using the federal government’s decades-old drug-war racket, Trump, the Pentagon, and the CIA are illegally killing innocent people on the high seas, engaging in CIA interventionism inside Venezuela (including, no doubt, state-sponsored assassinations), and now threatening to launch direct military bombing attacks on Venezuela itself. As Randolph Bourne pointed out, “War is the health of the state.”

Meanwhile, after flipping back and forth on the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump seems to have finally settled on the side of Ukraine. No doubt the Pentagon played a major role in influencing Trump in this direction, given that it’s the Pentagon, operating through its Cold War dinosaur NATO, that is the entity that is actually waging war against Russia by using Ukraine as its proxy.

Why do I bring up Ukraine in the context of addressing what is going on with Venezuela? Because it’s ironic that ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. officials and their supporters in the mainstream press have condemned Russia for its “unprovoked” war of aggression against Ukraine, ignoring completely the role that NATO (i.e., the Pentagon) played into intentionally provoking Russia’s invasion.

Why is that ironic? Because those same U.S. officials and many of their mainstream-press acolytes are now non-plussed by the U.S. aggression against Venezuela! It’s as if the U.S. government’s aggression is no big deal while supposed Russian aggression reflects an attempt to conquer the world. (To its credit, in its editorial the New York Times condemns Trump’s and the Pentagon’s extra-judicial killings in the Caribbean as “defiance of U.S. and international law.”)

Trump’s and the Pentagon’s illegal killings in the Caribbean and the CIA’s paramilitary interventionism in Venezuela are bad enough. But make no mistake about it: If Trump launches direct military attacks on Venezuela itself, this will be one more illegal U.S. war of aggression against a country that has not attacked the United States. That’s important because that’s the type of war that was condemned as a war crime at Nuremberg. Moreover, it will be a war that is illegal under our form of constitutional government, given that the U.S. Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before the president can wage war against another nation state.

What about the much-vaunted U.S. war on drugs? Doesn’t the U.S. government wield the legal authority to enforce its drug war against other nations?

Absolutely not! Every nation on earth has the authority to adopt its own drug policy. No nation is legally required to follow the U.S. government’s dictates on drug prohibition. If Venezuela decided to legalize drugs, that would be its prerogative. By the same token, if the Venezuelan government has drug laws but declines to enforce them, that too is its prerogative. If the Venezuelan government decided to do nothing about drug cartels and drug gangs producing, selling, and exporting drugs, that also would be its prerogative. No nation-state has the legal duty to adopt the U.S. government’s decades-old racket of drug prohibition.

Thus, President Trump’s, the Pentagon’s, and the CIA’s use of their crooked, corrupt, deadly, and destructive drug-war racket to attack and bomb Venezuela will be as illegitimate as President Bush’s, the Pentagon’s, and the CIA’s bogus use of WMDs to attack Iraq. No nation-state has the legitimate authority to attack another nation state — and kill innocent people in the process — in the purported attempt to enforce its own morally bankrupt policy of drug prohibition.

As I pointed out last July —before Trump took steps to concoct the Venezuela crisis — Americans had better brace themselves for another foreign war — as a way to quell the MAGA rebellion over the Jeffrey Epstein files. If that was, in fact, why Trump concocted this crisis, his strategy has worked brilliantly. Excited over the prospect of a regime-change war against Venezuela, Trump’s MAGA supporters have forgotten their Epstein rebellion, and, for all practical purposes, their rebellion is over. The Epstein files will remain secret.

And make no mistake about it: If Trump uses the drug war to launch a regime-change war against Venezuela, America will slide even further into authoritarianism. But of course, that’s what some people would call making America great again.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Another Regime-Change War Will Accelerate America’s Slide Into Authoritarianism appeared first on LewRockwell.

As we come to the end of this series, there is time for one final song for the unsung, a sort of swan song, a final elegy and eulogy for those unknown heroes and heroines whose passing from this life went unheeded and unheralded but who have been sung to their rest by ministering angels. Whereas those who have been the focus of the previous essays have all left their mark on history in the sense that their names are known to posterity, albeit not as well-known as they should be, this final song will be of the nameless ones, the vast majority of humankind, whose names have been completely erased from the historical record.

The nameless ones are those whose names are no longer legible on the weather-worn tombstones that mark their resting place. They lived, to be sure; they loved and were loved, we can assume; they might have had children who also had children of their own, and whose children’s children are oblivious of their ever having lived. Their sins are forgotten as are their virtues.

These nameless and unrecorded ones remind us that history comes in two forms. There is recorded history, which is documented and written about and studied, and there is unrecorded history, which is all that has ever happened in the past, known and unknown, documented and undocumented. The former is miniscule in relation to the latter, the mere tip of the historical iceberg.

These hidden heroes of Christendom, these nameless ones, are the saints who are known to God, if unknown to us. They are those who are forgiven by Him, if forgotten by us, who now enjoy His eternal Presence in Heaven. Having been good and faithful servants and soldiers in the Church Militant, they now enjoy their triumph in the Church Triumphant.

Who are they?

They are those who suffered for the Faith in times of persecution. They are the martyrs of the Early Church, who are not listed with the saints because their names are not known. They are those who hid priests during the Tudor Terror in England, putting their lives at risk, or those imprisoned or forced into exile because they would not abandon their faith.

They are the victims of plagues and the victims of war, whose lives were cut tragically short. They are those killed by guillotine, gulag, and gas chamber; and those incinerated by the bombs of blitzkrieged London, carpet-bombed Dresden, and atomic-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And then there are those humble souls who lived quiet uneventful lives in relatively quiet and uneventful times. They are the simple laborers in the vineyard, the sowers of seeds, the shepherds, and the craftsmen. They are the meek who inherited nothing but the earth in which they were laid.

Perhaps these musings on unsung heroes should conclude with a brief meditation on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, the burial site of a World War I soldier whose remains were unidentifiable. It is right and just (dignum et justum est) that Caesar should honor the unknown warrior in this way; but it is much more right and just that Christ should honor those unknown heroes who have fought the good fight through so many centuries.

If Christ so honors these humble souls by raising them from the tomb into His Kingdom in Heaven, it is surely incumbent upon us to honor them also. In doing so, and in doing what they did, we might hope to be where they are. Through their prayers and by the grace of God, we might hope to join the unsung heroes of Christendom in the song of songs that never ends.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Song That Never Ends appeared first on LewRockwell.

Readers will be aware that Murray Rothbard conceptualized all rights as property rights, derived from the principle of self-ownership. His concept of individual liberty was thus rooted in the defense of private property rights. This is not to say that he disregarded other philosophical perspectives in which the defense of individual liberty plays a central role. On the contrary, as Sheldon Richman has observed, Rothbard’s own political philosophy encompassed a wide range of perspectives on liberty:

Rothbard took obvious delight in exploring the foundations and ramifications of liberty across disciplines. For him, individual liberty was a single gem with many facets: economic, historical, sociological, political-ethical. A scholar can set his sights on one or another facet, but for Rothbard, something is lost if one neglects the whole gem.

This appreciation for a broader defense of liberty is on full display in Rothbard’s “A Strategy for the Right,” in which he struck a celebratory note describing his “return home to the Right-wing, after 35 years in the political wilderness.” In this 1992 address to the John Randolph Club, Rothbard highlighted the value of forming political coalitions in the defense of liberty, especially with traditional conservatives on the “Old Right” who recognized that a government with unlimited power to intervene in the lives of citizens can only ever be a tyrannical government. The Old Right stood resolutely against what Rothbard called “the power elite” who posed the gravest threat to individual liberty.

Rothbard defined the power elite as “the bureaucrats, politicians, and special interest groups dependent on political rule. They make money out of politics, and so they are intensely interested, and lobby and are active twenty-four hours a day” when ordinary citizens are preoccupied with “the daily business of life, on making a living, being with his family, seeing his friends, etc.” It is precisely because those on the right have little time to devote to politics that forming coalitions in pursuit of common goals becomes important.

This is not, of course, to say that there are no important differences between libertarians and all who travel under the banner of “conservatives.” Nevertheless, Rothbard recognized that although “there were many differences within the framework of the Old Right,” traditional conservatives shared in common the desire to defend the individual from the tyranny of the Leviathan state and from the machinations of Neo-Marxist court intellectuals whose role is to legitimize state power.

From a different perspective, the conservative intellectual historian Richard Weaver also highlighted the importance of joining in common cause with those who defend liberty from different philosophical perspectives. Weaver was a great defender of property rights, and David Gordon has described Weaver’s book Ideas Have Consequences as a brilliant defense of property rights and “one of the founding works of post-World War II American conservatism.” In his essay “Conservatism and Libertarianism: The Common Ground,” Weaver advances an argument very similar in key respects to Rothbard’s “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature”—the argument that individual liberty is an essential attribute of human nature and that no defense of individual liberty can be successful if it operates at the level of high theory in disregard for human nature and the reality of the human condition. Weaver argues:

It is my contention that a conservative is a realist, who believes that there is a structure of reality independent of his own will and desire…this structure consists not merely of the great physical world but also of many laws, principles, and regulations which control human behavior. Though this reality is independent of the individual, it is not hostile to him. It is in fact amenable by him in many ways, but it cannot be changed radically and arbitrarily. This is the cardinal point.

Weaver, like Rothbard, was critical of the progressive radical who revolts against reality, whom he described as “the radical [who] makes his will the law, instead of following the rules of justice and prudence. Fancying that his dream or wish can be substituted for the great world of reality, he gets into a fix from which some good conservative has to rescue him.” This explains the conservative opposition to the progressive radical:

[The radical’s] first thought now is to get control of the state to make all men equal or to make all men rich, or failing that to make all men equally unhappy. This use of political instrumentality to coerce people to conform with his dream, in the face of their belief in a real order, is our reason, I think, for objecting to the radical.

Weaver rejected egalitarian schemes, which he rightly understood to be an excuse for vesting increasing power in the state. He saw the conservative rejection of egalitarianism and the commitment to reality as an important common point between libertarians and conservatives, emphasizing that human nature and human action are the key to understanding reality:

Praxeology, briefly defined, is the science of how things work because of their essential natures. We find this out not by consulting our wishes but by observing them. For example, I believe it is a praxeological law that a seller will always try to get as much as he can for what he has to sell, and a buyer will always try to pay as little as he can to get it. That is a law so universal that we think of it as part of the order of things. Not only is this law a reliable index of human behavior; it also makes possible the free market economy, with its extremely important contribution to political freedom.

These points of common interest between libertarian and conservative thought—while they do not by any means represent a uniform philosophical worldview—help to reinforce the strength of the political defense of liberty. The same applies to the defense of individualism within both traditions, even though here the divergence between the two worldviews becomes sharper. In his essay, “Two Types of American Individualism,” Weaver rejected the individualism which is reflected in “denying our responsibilities to our fellow men” through the type of “isolationism” for which Henry David Thoreau is admired. Instead, Weaver defended an individualism that is “more tolerant and circumspective,” that is not radical but, on the contrary, is rooted in human nature and offers “our best hope for preserving human personality in a civil society.” Weaver’s individualism draws upon a political philosophy that stands against “the forces of regimentation [and] totalitarianism” and is most powerfully expressed in the doctrine of states’ rights.

The standard bearer for this view of individualism is John Randolph of Roanoke, whose political philosophy was firmly realist in the Rothbardian sense, Weaver observing that, “His attitude was one of scorn for those who evade reality.” Randolph defended states’ rights as a doctrine that “in his mind constituted the anchor of liberty.” For Randolph, states’ rights stood as a bulwark against federal coercion, thereby safeguarding the individual citizen from the tyrannical centralization of government power. Weaver described Randolph as an “ultra-individualist,” an independent thinker who “was a follower neither of men’s opinions nor their fortunes, and he did not feel that a bold utterance needed apology.” In Randolph’s political philosophy, individualism was rooted in the social and political context of time and place. Weaver explains:

Individualism is a rejection of presumptive control from without. But Randolph never lost sight of the truth expressed in Aristotle’s dictum that man is a political animal. His individualism is, therefore, what I am going to call “social bond” individualism. It battles unremittingly for individual rights, while recognizing that these have to be secured within the social context… Randolph could not visualize men’s solving political questions through simple self-isolation.

Randolph wanted the locus of power to be as close as possible to those who would be affected by political decisions. He saw this as the most effective way to maximize the scope of individual liberty, arguing that, “Government to be safe and to be free must consist of representatives having a common interest and a common feeling with the represented.” Hence, Weaver argues that, “Randolph deserves to be called a political conservative individualist for two reasons…his belief in the limited though real role of government, and his defense of the smaller but ‘natural’ unit against the larger one which pretends a right to rule.”

This is a concept of individual liberty that treats “the relation of the individual to the state” as instrumental in ensuring as large as possible a scope for individual liberty. In this defense of natural rights, individual liberty, and states’ rights, Randolph helped to forge the foundations of the philosophical tradition which Rothbard celebrated in his “return home to the Right-wing.”

The post Individual Liberty in Libertarian and Conservative Philosophy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Zero Hedge

The post UK Train Mass Stabbing: Authorities Insist No Indication Of Terrorism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. national intelligence director, said that America’s strategy of “regime change or nation building” had ended under President Donald Trump. I wish it were true. Trump himself said the same thing earlier this year–and has targeted Venezuela for regime change ever since. The U.S. still has its tentacles wrapped around the world via the CIA, the State Department, the U.S. military, and God knows what else.

The post I Wish It Were True appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Crisscross billions of years of time and space to see how everyone, and everything, is linked in one universal story, and how an epic series of improbable events connected in order to make life possible.”

Present day apocalyptic events require rigorous observers to adopt investigative attitudes and objective tools of deep cosmology, biblical theology, and systematic geopolitics.

Let’s begin with the primary fact: The universe is all of space and time and their contents. It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of matter and energy, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galactic filaments.

Since the early 20th century, the field of cosmology establishes that space and time emerged together when a transcendent force we describe as “God,” created the universe at the Big Bang 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, and that the universe has been expanding since then. The portion of the universe that can be seen by humans is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter at present, but the total size of the universe is not known.

Here are six extremely helpful source references which will guide and assist you in helping to grasp this significance.

Big History — The Big History of Everything

The True Face of the Left Revealed

Gnosticism: The Enduring Heresy and Menace to Western Civilization

Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist

Cold War on Five Continents: The Geopolitics of Empire and Espionage

Is Atheism Dead? by Eric Metaxas

The post Present Day Apocalyptic Events Require Rigorous Observers to Adopt Investigative Attitudes and Objective Tools of Deep Cosmology, Biblical Theology, and Systematic Geopolitics appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

Key players connected with the murder of Charlie Kirk are tied to the US military. Google searches for places and people involved in the assassination were tracked by IP address to Israel after Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith’s appearances at the TPUSA conference appearances in July. Also, Candace Owens reports an Egyptian plane landed at Provo Airport near the UVU campus six days prior to the tragic event. 

See here.

The post Charlie Kirk Assassination Updates: Israel, US Military, Perhaps Egypt Involved appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lew,

In this TPUSA Charlie suggests 10/7 was a stand down by the Israeli government and he explains how he was smeared as a Jew hater but he refused to back down. He said asking questions is what keeps us free. He would absolutely want his friend Candace Owens to investigate his assassination. 

See here.

The post Charlie Kirk: Asking Questions Keeps Us Free appeared first on LewRockwell.

The PLA is not the Iraqi military of the 1990s, against whom such bullying tactics could succeed. It’s a modern, technologically advanced force equipped with hypersonic weapons that the US can only dream of, capable of obliterating entire American fleets, multiple times over. Every aggressive move by the US is meticulously observed, analyzed, and countered. These exercises in China’s vicinity provide the PLA with invaluable, real-time data on US tactics, communication protocols, and electronic signatures, effectively making the US Navy a live training aid for its own eventual defeat.

The final months of 2025 have witnessed an unprecedented escalation in Washington DC’s relentless campaign to “contain” (in reality, to besiege) one of the multipolar world’s primary pillars – the People’s Republic of China. Under the thin, tattered veil of “freedom of navigation” and “regional stability”, the United States, its vassals and satellite states have unleashed a tsunami of aggressive military exercises across the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific, in a desperate attempt to project an image of “strength” that belies a deep-seated strategic panic. This geopolitical offensive is not merely a routine demonstration of force, but a frantic heartbeat of a dying hegemony, a coordinated series of war games designed to simulate a conflict the political West can no longer win in reality.

The strategic landscape has been defined by both a qualitative and quantitative leap in provocation. We have moved beyond the predictable, annual routines of previous years. The campaign of “stabilizing” joint military exercises in 2025 include the “Pacific Steller” (multiple locations in the Celebes and Philippine Seas, February), “Cobra Gold” (Thailand, February-March), ‘Sea Dragon” (US-occupied Guam, March), “Pacific Sentry” (multiple locations across Asia-Pacific and North America, April), “Balikatan” (the Philippines, April-May), “Talisman Sabre” (Australia, July-August), “Resolute Force Pacific” (Micronesia, July-August), “Super Garuda Shield” (Indonesia, August-September), “Freedom Edge” (South Korea, September), “Resolute Dragon” (Japan, September), the ongoing “Malabar” (Guam again, October-November), etc.

What’s the one common denominator of all these “democratic” military activities? Well, obviously, the “evil, aggressive” China that “dared” to place itself so close to American “strategic interests”. It should also be noted that this doesn’t come anywhere near completing the list of all American military drills and other activities across the wider region. The US Navy carrier strike groups, the USAF air armadas, as well as the US Army and Marine Corps missile units are all deployed around China. Whether it’s the East and South China Seas, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Guam, etc, the Pentagon is there to “explain the need for freedom of navigation”. A host of American destroyers and other ships regularly sail in the vicinity of Chinese waters and, more importantly, maritime trade routes (the lifeline of Beijing’s export).

Even more importantly, these vessels are followed by nuclear-powered attack (SSGNs) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), lurking in the depths and waiting for a command to unleash thermonuclear hellfire on China’s bustling megacities. Does the Asian giant have similar military and naval forces in the vicinity of American coasts? Certainly not. On the contrary, during my recent visit to China, its intellectuals and even public officials spoke of the need for nuclear disarmament while we were in range of US nuclear-tipped cruise missiles deployed in Japan. The Pentagon regularly practices long-range strikes on Chinese coastal areas, including scenarios explicitly modeled on the blockade of the aforementioned Chinese maritime lanes that are critically important for its economic development.

The message is as crude as it is intentional: Washington DC seeks the capability to strangle China’s economic lifelines and enforce a medieval-style strategic siege in the 21st century. The naval and other military drills are designed to integrate various elements of the Pentagon’s power projection capabilities. The units that are engaged in these exercises are the vanguard of America’s highly destabilizing “Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations” doctrine, which envisages capturing and reinforcing strategic locations in the First Island Chain. Their mission? To function as forward operating bases and disposable missile squads, aiming to turn the sovereign territories of other nations into a powder keg aimed directly at the Chinese mainland, threatening cities as far as Chongqing.

Expectedly, the mainstream propaganda machine paints all this as “forward defense”, instead of what it really is – a weaponization of geography against China. Although highly destabilizing, it’s hardly surprising. It’s highly reminiscent of the regular thalassocratic approach when fighting tellurocracies (land powers). The narrative peddled by the Pentagon and its echo chambers in the Western corporate media is one of “deterring Chinese aggression”. This is a masterclass in psychological projection. When was the last time the People’s Liberation Army conducted carrier group drills off the coast of California or fired a missile in the Gulf of Mexico? Or better yet, when was the last time China invaded a sovereign country under a bogus claim of “liberation” (from itself and its resources) or “freedom and democracy”?

It is the US, a power from a different hemisphere, that keeps sending warships over 10,000 km from its coasts. Meanwhile, it screams “Monroe Doctrine!” when China tries to establish normal economic and trade cooperation with any independent country south of the Rio Grande. The sheer scale and offensive posture of American military exercises — practicing maritime blockades and strikes against integrated air defenses — reveals who the real aggressor is. It doesn’t take a military expert to understand these are not defensive maneuvers, but the rehearsal of what can only be described as full-scale aggression. The increase in the frequency of these drills is also quite revealing, as well as the fact that the US is integrating as many vassals and satellite states as possible into these activities and mustering these auxiliary forces.

The timing of this third and fourth trimester surge is critically significant. It coincides with two pivotal developments. First, the continued, remarkable success of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is weaving the economic fabric of Eurasia and beyond into a cohesive, cooperative whole, free from the shackles of the US-dominated monetary system. Second, the definitive failure of Washington DC’s hybrid war in NATO-occupied Ukraine, which has exposed the fatal limits of its conventional military power and accelerated the de-dollarization of the global economy. The frantic militarism in the Asia-Pacific is therefore a direct response to these geopolitical failures. Unable to compete economically or through its failed “rules-based world order”, the warmongers and war criminals in Washington DC are falling back on their only remaining tool: brute military force.

However, this desperate gambit is doomed to fail. The PLA is not the Iraqi military of the 1990s, against whom such bullying tactics could succeed. It’s a modern, technologically advanced force equipped with hypersonic weapons that the US can only dream of, capable of obliterating entire American fleets, multiple times over. Every aggressive move by the US is meticulously observed, analyzed, and countered. These exercises in China’s vicinity provide the PLA with invaluable, real-time data on US tactics, communication protocols, and electronic signatures, effectively making the US Navy a live training aid for its own eventual defeat. Not to mention that Beijing is not alone. Its allies, Russia and North Korea, are there to provide any assistance (not that the Asian giant needs it, but it’s always good to have a friend watch your back).

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

The post America’s Desperate Gambit To Further Militarize the Asia-Pacific Region appeared first on LewRockwell.

As a kid growing up in the 1980s, war seemed like a video game I could watch on my TV.

And if you were unsure about some military action, you must be some commie who hates America.

Yes, dear reader, that was where I was. I thought only “liberals” hesitated to use the military, so I as a non-liberal had to stand up and cheer every time.

Now, the reality is this:

Progressives overwhelmingly supported the Spanish-American War, the world wars, and the “vital center” Democrats supported the entire Cold War. Then after the Cold War they were ready to go in Bosnia, Serbia, and a long list of other places.

Antiwar? Don’t make me laugh.

The left has always recognized the revolutionary potential of war. You think Mao Tse-Tung was “antiwar”?

Progressive intellectuals urged U.S. intervention into World War I in part because they knew it would undermine American fidelity to the free market, and begin the process of government management of the economy and society. These people were not “antiwar.”

So I was wrong about that.

When I went off to college in 1990, I couldn’t tell my new roommate enthusiastically enough how much I favored going after Saddam Hussein. I couldn’t understand why Pat Buchanan was against it, but I figured he just had a blind spot.

Then the bombs started falling, and within a month it was all over. The Bob Hope special celebrating the victory was dutifully aired.

And I thought: why am I cheering when there are now who knows how many widows and orphans in a country that never harmed me?

Even if the war had been strictly necessary, I could not take part in that. That was inhuman.

I went in to see Charles Maier, my left-liberal European history professor, to ask about his support for the war (again, these people are not antiwar) and my own misgivings. He directed me to the current cover story in the left-liberal New Republic in defense of the war.

Around that time I discovered Chronicles magazine, whose writers put the superficial and not very bright Sean Hannity and other neoconservative radio hosts to shame. Here in these pages was conservatism, as opposed to the hideous parody most people knew.

And these guys were all against the war, too.

I later discovered that Russell Kirk, whose book The Conservative Mind was a foundational text of the modern American conservative movement, had said in a private letter that George H.W. Bush should be strung up on the White House lawn for war crimes.

Was Russell Kirk a commie? Come on.

So I realized: I’ve been lied to, big time.

Fast forward to 2010. I’m speaking at an event hosted by the Tenth Amendment Center. It’s a mixed crowd. There are plenty of people who believe in the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus. (By that time, I didn’t believe in any bipartisan anything, because they were always terrible.)

I briefly had the thought: maybe I won’t discuss foreign policy in my speech. Maybe I’ll just stick to issues we all agree on.

And then I felt a sting of shame: would Ron Paul act like this? Would he be a coward who backed away from controversy for the sake of applause?

So I determined to do it.

For half an hour I built up my capital with them by making them laugh and applaud.

And then in the final 15 minutes I said, I hate to break it to you, but I’m not only against the domestic idiocy, but I’m against the foreign policy, too. A rough transcript is in bold:

And I say this knowing that some of you are going to disagree with me. But I’m telling you, I am not a leftist in any way. I have come to the conclusion that they’re lying sociopaths domestically and that they don’t magically transform into angels when it comes to foreign policy. They are also lying to us.

I think back to the 1990s when I was, you know, well, younger than I am now. And I, I basically believed that, well, I’m a good little conservative. And so when the authorities tell me that military action is necessary, only a pinko commie would question them. Now, that was a big, big moral mistake. I made an intellectual mistake, and I’m sorry I made it.

I think back to the disgraceful ways I used to make up excuses for these people. They would do commit horrific atrocities on the most flimsy pretexts. The arguments they made for some of these wars were so transparent, how can a conservative who’s supposed to be dedicated to reason and Western civilization be swept up in this? It’s beneath us to fall for some of this stuff, and yet I fell for it. I would go around searching for corroborating evidence to support the lies of my overlords in the regime.

If I had seen a poor Russian in the Soviet Union doing the same thing, saying, what Pravda is telling us is true,I’ve been looking it up and I’ve found all this evidence, I would have treated that person with contempt. But for some reason, when it was my own looting expropriators, it was okay for me to make excuses for them and to search out corroborating evidence even for arguments that they themselves had abandoned.

And I finally just decided, and this was back in the early 1990s, after the first Persian Gulf War. And this is a war a lot of people thought was unobjectionable: Saddam’s a bad guy, he’s said to be massing his troops on the Saudi border, etc. But I remember hearing about people retreating, being incinerated.

I’m being asked to have a Bob Hope special to celebrate this? I thought to myself, what’s happening to me? What have I allowed this institution to do to me that I could look so callously on these poor people?

These people were conscripted, most of them. I don’t care that the sociopaths in DC have told me I’m supposed to hate these people, because I don’t hate them.

You know, if there had been an earthquake over there, we would all be tears and pity about it. But when they’re incinerated alive? Nothing. These people are treated like human garbage. And I just decided at that point: I’m not doing this anymore. I don’t believe what you are telling me. I don’t believe your phony baloney reasons for your wars, and I’m done making excuses for them.

Because unlike the regime, I really do believe in absolute moral standards.

As the 1990s progressed, we got the sanctions regime on Saddam. The UN says 500,000 children have died of malnutrition because of the sanctions. I don’t like or trust the UN any more than you do. The usual response was: that’s a phony statistic. Or if Saddam hadn’t spent all his money on palaces, the kids could have eaten — whatever. That’s neither here nor there.

The point is, neither Madeleine Albright nor Bill Richardson questioned that figure. They said that price was “worth it.” They didn’t say: the UN is lying. They said that price is worth it.

I am expected to defend the idea that an atrocity like that is “worth it”? You cannot possibly be a conservative if this is how you think.

It is indeed impossible for a conservative, who lectures the world about moral relativism, to make excuses for moral outrages just because they happen to be committed by Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton.

I might add, in case you need to be reminded: Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton are not your friends, so you need not do unpaid labor making excuses for their crimes.

We are better than this. How can we allow ourselves to be so dehumanized that we sit here and allow ourselves make excuses for outrages like this? Do we believe in moral absolutes or do we not?

People used to say, “I like Ron Paul except for his foreign policy.” But his foreign policy is the best thing about him.

It took me a while to understand all this, but eventually I got there.

And one of our great heroes in all this, who has shown the right wing that they’re under no moral obligation to support a foreign policy whose premises were agreed on by the establishment of both parties, has been the brilliant Scott Horton.

This guy knows more truth about U.S. foreign policy than I have ever known about anything.

And now he’s teaching it, so our brains can be filled with facts rather than the absurdities of Lindsey Graham.

It’s the Scott Horton Academy, and his launch discount expires tonight.

I know how hard Scott worked on it, to make it the best it can possibly be for you.

Click the link, for the work of this great hero is what the world needs now:

https://www.ScottHortonAcademy.com

The post I Made Excuses for Atrocities appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today’s politicians are heavily indebted to Alexander Hamilton for pushing the machinery of big government under their control.  In assessing Hamilton’s role, it’s important to remember that the country formerly began for the second time in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified by nine of the thirteen states.   Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution would have been created had it not been for the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Even after Common Sense, the idea of secession was not greeted with unanimous approval.  About 20 percent of the population remained loyal to Britain, and many left the country during or after the war.  The loyalists had their own heroic writer, James Chalmers, who penned a response to Paine that ends by declaring “independence and slavery are synonymous terms.”  It wasn’t a popular sentiment.  Another 20-30 percent rallied with the revolutionaries, while the majority couldn’t make up their minds, though that started to change after Washington’s first victory, the Battle of Trenton, and Paine’s first American Crisis essay.

Then there was still the technical matter of getting members of the Continental Congress to sign a treasonous document.  Would today’s Congress underwrite any document that claimed it was their right and duty to throw off such governments that violated man’s inalienable rights?  How could they?  Their business is defending “national security,” not protecting individual rights.

Fifty-six members of the Congress signed the Declaration.  Many were lawyers and merchants.  All were well educated and most were at least moderately wealthy.  John Hancock, perhaps the wealthiest, signed in a bold and stylish manner so that, according to legend, George III would not need glasses to read it.  It has since become a synonym for “signature.”  All 56 signers were willing to risk their “lives and fortunes” to support the Declaration.

The lawyers, at least, were likely well-versed in James Otis, Jr.’s court battle against the Crown’s writs of assistance, which “were broad search warrants that allowed British customs officials to search property without a court order and force law enforcement officials to help them.”  According to John Adams’s reconstruction of Otis’s four-hour oration, he was so thorough and eloquent that “every man of a crowded audience was ready” to take up arms against the Crown.  Otis said a man’s home is his castle, and if he behaves quietly he must be as well-protected as a prince.  In journalist A. J. Langguth’s words, Otis was saying,

Every man was his own sovereign, subject to laws engraved on his heart and revealed to him by his Maker. No other creature on earth could legitimately challenge a man’s right to his life, his liberty and his property. That principle, that unalterable law, took precedence . . . even over the survival of the state.

The issue of sovereignty

In broad strokes, sovereignty passed from the individual in the Declaration, to the States in the Articles, to the federal government in the Constitution.  The idea that drove secession, inviolable individual rights, was discarded, even after the Bill of Rights was appended on December 15, 1791.  Though the Rights have binding legal force, the judge in all cases is the government itself.

Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist papers, his brainchild and all under the pseudonym Publius, advocating for ratification of a document, the US Constitution, that would create a stronger, more energetic federal government. Since a government of that nature was the recent object of secession, he had to take pains to avoid sounding like he wanted another England.  Thus, we find In Federalist No. 22,

The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE [caps in original]. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.

How many American soldiers thought they fighting for an “American empire”?

In Federalist No. 84, he argued against including a Bill of Rights, saying they were not only unnecessary but dangerous.  “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Later, he wrote,

All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. . . The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give, therefore, to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and, as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic Assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.

We needn’t worry this is a recipe for tyranny because those rich and well-born “will ever maintain good government.”  All they need are the right tools to get the job done.  As Treasury Secretary under President Washington, he proposed the creation of a national bank.

It is a fact, well understood, that public banks have found admission and patronage among the principal and most enlightened commercial nations. . . .

Trade and industry, wherever they have been tried, have been indebted to them for important aid, and government has been repeatedly under the greatest obligations to them in dangerous and distressing emergencies.

Hamilton’s model for an American national bank was the Bank of England, which had been around since 1694.

[It] unites public authority and faith with private credit, and hence we see what a vast fabric of paper credit is raised on a visionary basis. Had it not been for this, England would never have found sufficient funds to carry on her wars; but with the help of this, she has done, and is doing, wonders.

Hamilton was correct.  The Bank had been indispensable in funding England’s wars with its “vast fabric of paper credit [no doubt raised] on a visionary basis.” And it is continuing along this path today:

It serves as a fundamental tool for influencing interest rates throughout the economy. Changes in the base rate directly impact borrowing costs for individuals, businesses, and financial institutions. The Bank of England’s interest rates are pivotal in shaping the UK’s monetary policy and influencing borrowing costs for individuals and businesses.

Sound familiar?  Who would disagree that the Federal Reserve creates a vast fabric of digits on a visionary basis, its vision being to keep the government loaded with debt so it can practice war anywhere it wishes as dollar holders see their purchasing power plunge ever closer to zero.

George Will was right.  We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country.

The post Birth of a Nation, Death of an Ideal appeared first on LewRockwell.

China is not worried; the tech expectation is that they won’t need anything from the US in the spectrum of 2 to 3 years.

So the latest incarnation of the much-hyped G-2 came and went. It did feel like a switch from Trump Tariff Temper Tantrum to Temporary Truce.

Naturally there has been an avalanche of spin focusing on the easing of “trade tensions”; but what really mattered in practical terms was the lack of a full “deal” after 1h40 of debate in South Korea – complete with a smiling handshake coda.

Well, anyone with an IQ over room temperature knew from the start what Trump wanted to extract from Beijing. Essentially 3 items:

1. Easing of restrictions on rare earth exports, because the whole, vast US industrial-military complex with its coterie of embedded high-tech industries simply cannot be “affected” by a supply chain rupture, and there’s no way to build one in less than at least 5 years.
2. China should buy enormous amounts of US agricultural products, especially soybeans: otherwise Trump’s voter base will be in revolt, then bye bye to mid-terms and even the next presidential victory. Toxic asset Steve Bannon has already announced, on the record, that Trump will run.
3. China should buy enormous amounts of overpriced American oil and simultaneously decrease, drastically, its energy imports from Russia; hence Moscow will be “forced” to be back to the “negotiating table” re: Ukraine.

There was never any chance that China would even contemplate discussing item 3 – considering the role of energy in the comprehensive Russia-China strategic partnership.

So what we had were minor concessions on items 1 and 2, still quite vague.

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce, for its part, officially announced that Washington will cancel the 10% so-called “fentanyl tariffs” and suspend, for an additional year, the 24% reciprocal tariffs levied on all Chinese products, including those coming from “one country, two systems” stawarts Hong Kong and Macao.

Soybean concessions were expected. Brazil played a not very wise game by raising the price of their soybeans from $530 per ton to $680. Beijing started to have second thoughts on buying more from their BRICS brothers: China moreover is Brazil’s top trade partner. Beijing combined the devaluation of the US dollar with the bumper US crop where farmers are willing to apply a discount of 10%, and in the end got out with a good deal – with the extra bonus of appeasing the Circus Ringmaster’s domestic supporters.

Navigating the “giant ship”

Instead of trademark Circus Ringmaster boasting/bragging re: deals that may exist only in his mind, it’s much more relevant to pay attention to how this G-2 was interpreted by China.

The emphasis was on cooperation, appeasement of Trump’s volatility plus a subtle History lesson – with a long view. See for instance the terminology employed by Xi, classic metaphorical China:

“In the face of winds, waves and challenges, we should stay the right course, navigate through the complex landscape, and ensure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China-U.S. relations.”

Other Chinese ministerial texts sailed even further than Xi’s “giant ship”. They emphasize the concept of “mutual achievement and common prosperity”. That’s not new, coming from official China. But then there was a startling, explicit statement:

“China’s development and revitalization and President Trump’s goal of ‘making America great again’ are not mutually exclusive.”

Translation: the Beijing leadership now is self-confident enough when it comes to China’s renewed strenghths and the “objective situation” – as in the state of the geopolitical and geoeconomic chessboard. So they believe that the US and China may not necessarily have to fall into the abyss of a zero-sum game.

It’s impossible to tell whether Trump himself fully understands it. Assorted Sinophobes advising him certainly don’t.

It’s also crucial to place the G-2 in South Korea in the context of what happened right before, earlier in the week, during the several summits inbuilt in the annual ASEAN sumitt in Kuala Lumpur, as I addressed it here.

The renewed interconnected trade drive between the ASEAN + 3 (China, Japan and South Korea) and the RCEP (encompassing most of Asia-Pacific) points to East Asia counteracting the imperial tariff tantrums as a concerted unit.

And on the crucial, progressive yuanization of the planet, it was also this week that Beijing officially boosted petroyuan deals with the Arab petro-monarchies while inviting all its BRICS brothers and partners to use the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS): in short, the digital yuan.

In parallel, Li Chenggang, Vice-Minister of Commerce and China’s International Trade Representative, made sure how the rare earth export control measures will affect China’s foreign trade in green tech products.

He said that these export controls are most of all connected with improving security: “Green development is a development philosophy (…)  On the relationship between security and development (…) in short, ensuring security is essential for better development, and better development, in turn, guarantees stronger security.”

Global South nations will understand that. Not necessarily the Pentagon.

Not a word on semiconductors or Taiwan

Right after the G-2, Xi continued to enjoy the limelight at the first session of the 32nd APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting, with a five-point proposal for promoting inclusive economic globalization, to the benefit of the “Asia-Pacific community” (not “Indo-Pacific”, which is conceptually void).

Xi talked directly to the Global South; he called for “joint efforts” to “safeguard the multilateral trading system”; build an “open regional economic environment”; keep the stability and “smooth flow of industrial and supply chains”; promote digitalization and greening of trade; and promote “universally beneficial and inclusive development.”

That’s not exactly a Trump 2.0 platform.

Well, China will host APEC 2026, and the US will host the G-20 in 2026. This G-2 in South Korea certainly may be seen as a symbolic pause, or a time out. Yet no one knows what the Circus Ringmaster may be up to next – including himself.

Two final, key points: not a word on both sides on possible US concessions related to export controls on advanced semiconductors. That means no deal. China is not worried; the tech expectation is that they won’t need anything from the US in the spectrum of 2 to 3 years.

And not a word on Taiwan. All bets are off – but it may be the case that somebody whispered on Trump’s ear (he doesn’t read) the content of Zhou Bo’s latest sharp column on the matter.

So no provocation and/or escalation. At least for now.

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

The post Trump, Xi and That G-2 in South Korea appeared first on LewRockwell.

Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States of America and is strenuously attempting to confirm his right to do “whatever I want to do” over the entire world, it is easy to forget that minus his inability to articulate a coherent sentence his predecessors suffered from much of the same delusion. George W Bush called for a global war on terror and declared himself to be the “new sheriff in town,” a conceit that led to killing millions in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Barack Obama invaded Libya and met on Thursday mornings with his “security advisers to draw up lists of American citizens overseas who would be killed.”

Even the mentally challenged Genocide Joe Biden praised his steering of the Ship of State in a speech at the State Department a week before he passed the imperial baton on to Trump at the January 20th presidential inauguration. In his speech, he argued that he was handing off to President Trump a strong position on the world stage, making the case for continuity in US efforts to counter “threats” posed by China’s global ambitions and Russia’s aggression.

In his remarks at State, Biden sought to make the case for his “exemplary” foreign policy legacy, as Trump, at that time and not yet in office, was already promising something different while threatening allies and calling for America’s territorial expansion, not to mention how he would be renaming international bodies of water and national monuments and sites, in many cases seeking to name them after himself.

Biden engaged in a prolonged boast about his achievements which was inevitably devoid of any real substance, saying “My administration is leaving the next administration with a very strong hand to play. The United States is winning the worldwide competition compared to four years ago. America is stronger. Our alliances are stronger, our adversaries and competitors are weaker. We have not gone to war to make these things happen.”

Biden conveniently forgot to mention how the US under his control was heavily involved in two major wars, in Ukraine and in Gaza. And then there was the disastrous retreat from Afghanistan after twenty years of wasted effort, countless dead bodies, and trillions of dollars thrown down a bottomless pit. He also did not mention the genocide being carried out by his good friends the Israelis which was and is enabled by uncritical support from Washington. Recent reports suggest that White House staff involved in Middle Eastern Policy under Biden sometimes suggested that the US try to rein-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s slaughter of the Palestinians as it was attracting increasing international criticism over Washington’s enabling role, but Biden refused to discuss the matter, responding only that “I am a Zionist!”

Perhaps someone should have suggested that Biden’s inclinations to go where the Jewish billionaire money leads him, one assumes, ought to be secondary to his oath of office and his doing what is best for the American people rather than for the fellow ardent Zionists like Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and others that he surrounded himself with. Blinken notably raced off to Israel immediately after the October 7th Hamas attack and announced upon arrival at the airport “I am here as Jew!” If Biden had had even an ounce of integrity and gumption he should have fired Blinken immediately, but of course he did not and it set an example for what had followed under Trump where two New York Jews named Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have de facto been negotiating with Israel and the Arabs even though they were knowledgeable only of their career specialties, i.e. real estate. The result of that, a green light for Israel to keep doing the killing to clear Gaza for redevelopment as the Trump Riviera, should have been obvious when the two men announced that they did not see any genocide taking place in Gaza, something that has been clearly visible to 90% of the world’s population.

Trump, now that he has been in place for nine months, is rather like a throwback to a twelve year old boy whose self esteem derives from having become a bully who terrorizes younger and smaller children in the schoolyard. In the current environment, Trump is killing fishermen in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean under the undemonstrated pretense that they are “narcoterrorists,” whatever that is supposed to mean. One might suspect that Trump’s willingness to kill repeatedly without providing any evidence that the victim deserved such a fate might come from over-exposure to his good friends in Israel where shooting children by the Israeli Army (IDF) is considered de rigueur.

Trump also does not hesitate to verbally terrorize foreign heads of state, ambassadors, journalists and anyone else he perceives as having slighted him in the least. They are all set up for punishment to demonstrate what a real he-man he is. Unfortunately for the United States, all that he most often succeeds in doing is to create contempt for the US and for the system that produces presidents like Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden and, the ultimate product, Donald J Trump himself, whose most enduring saying is “You’re fired!” delivered with a malignant sneer and a pointed finger.

Indeed, there is always something new and exciting to report when Trump, who just might be experiencing a major health crisis, is around asserting himself. The latest news is that he has ordered the Pentagon (i.e. now known as the War Department) to begin upgrading America’s nuclear arsenal by increasing “testing” of the hardware. Trump appeared to be suggesting the US will resume testing nuclear weapons for the first time in three decades, saying only that it would be on an “equal basis” with presumed competitors like Russia and China. He might also be looking at Iran and oddly left Israel with its secret arsenal that is reportedly under the “Samson Option” targeting European cities including Rome out of the reckoning.

Significantly, the news of the changed policy broke while Trump was meeting with President Xi Jinping in China, presumably as a form of warning. An announcement about the testing subsequently appeared on Trump’s Truth Social in which the president wrote “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” There was no indication whether the Pentagon would start detonating actual warheads, meaning that Trump was offering few details about what seemed to be a significant shift in US defense policy. The US already regularly tests missiles that are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, but it has not actually detonated the weapons since 1992 because of a test ban.

When he spoke to reporters later in China, Trump was somewhat evasive or even confused, saying in regard to other nuclear armed countries that they “seem to all be nuclear testing” but in the United States, “We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. We don’t do testing. I see them testing and I say, well, if they’re going to test, I guess we have to test.” When asked where the tests would take place he said, “It’ll be announced. We have test sites.”

The presumption is that The Donald will use the “enhanced” weapons to threaten other nations to obey the pronouncements coming out of the White House. Trump, being somewhat simple minded beyond the use of threats, clearly does not perceive that he is inviting other governments to do likewise, creating an arms race that could easily lead to the end of the world in a nuclear holocaust if someone twitches. That someone could easily be Trump himself as he is clearly incapable of foreseeing consequences for any of the impulsive actions that he is prone to.

Meanwhile the situation relating to the Gaza-Israel “Trump Peace Plan” continues to unravel. The ceasefire came into effect on October 11th, but Israel continued to commit dozens of ceasefire violations by shelling and shooting Palestinians including on the day before, when it struck targets in the southern Gaza Strip after it said its troops came under fire from Hamas militants. Five Palestinians were also reported killed on Thursday and a family of eleven trying to return to their former home on the following Friday were also killed by the Israeli Army. In the wake of the massacre of the family, which included seven children and three women, accomplished by firing a tank shell at their vehicle, Israeli sources claimed that they had crossed what Israel has referred to as a self-proclaimed “Yellow Line.” Israel again violated the agreement on Wednesday when Netanyahu ordered a heavy shelling and bombing that killed over 100 Gazans, including 46 children, over an alleged shooting incident. The Israeli response was reportedly greenlighted by Trump and his negotiations team, who were advised of the plan in advance.

The “Yellow Line”, beyond which Israeli forces have withdrawn, is unmarked or sign posted and is basically a killing field for any Palestine who approaches it. It separates areas under continuing Israeli military control – which is described as a security zone that includes more than 50 percent of Gaza – as permitted in Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan. Israeli “Defense” Minister Israel Katz, in the wake of the killing of the large family, has ordered Israeli forces to physically place warning signs to the approaches to the “Yellow Line” but he has also authorized Israeli soldiers to target and to kill anyone who crosses it.

This is ominous. It suggests that, even if the “ceasefire” holds, the Israeli government plans to maintain indefinitely its current military occupation of more than 50% of the territory of the Gaza Strip, territory which includes the great majority of Gaza’s agricultural land and which has already been effectively ethnically cleansed of Palestinians due to the bombing that has destroyed infrastructure in 90% of Gaza. Israel understands that even if the Palestinians wish to return home they will have no shelter, no jobs, no schools, hospitals or religious buildings, and no sources of income apart from charity. They will also be completely dependent on Israel allowing entry of food and medicine, which, as noted above, is now continuing to be restricted in spite of the ceasefire agreement.

There are reports that some Israeli Ministers have said: “As Soon as we get the hostages back, we will resume the slaughter.” Nearly all observers note that Israel does not have a good record on fulfilling ceasefire or other agreements and its withdrawal from occupied territory is often delayed through various contrivances. It has been well demonstrated that Israel is continuing its occupational presence in Areas “B” and “C” of the West Bank, from which, in accordance with the “Oslo” accords, it should have started its gradual withdrawal a quarter-century ago. Roving bands of armed Jewish settlers continue to kill Palestinian farmers, destroying their olive trees and livestock, and burning down their homes without any intercession from IDF soldiers who stand by to watch and applaud the carnage and destruction. For Israel “indefinite” tends to mean “permanent” whenever and wherever Israeli land-grabs are concerned assisted by American leaders like Donald Trump who have approved annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and East Jerusalem and the ongoing bombing of Lebanon while also giving Israel a free hand on the West Bank.

In fact, formal annexations by Israel are neither necessary nor desirable, since they could provoke Western states which have used the “temporary” excuse to justify their de facto support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine rather than to finally take constructive actions to end it. Israel understands that the optimal situation is effectively permanent occupation and control of all the territory of the former State of Palestine without a formal declaration of annexation, and that is undoubtedly what will continue as the Peace Process slowly proceeds, if it does at all. The “Trump peace plan” would, unsurprisingly, permit this status quo to continue.

So the beat goes on. The Trumpean universe continues to expand through threats and the murder of “enemies” even though the real enemy of the American people and their true national interests continues to be “friends” like Israel. And now the US nuclear arsenal is apparently being “tested” to make sure it is ready for use on competitors. Can all of this get any worse? Tune in next week!

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post Donald Trump the School Bully appeared first on LewRockwell.