Lew Rockwell Institute

There’s an article on Breitbart with a paywall that announces the DOGE has uncovered $1.1 trillion in “improper” Medicaid payments over the past ten years.  As Bill Clinton would say, it all depends on what the meaning of improper is.  A former colleague of mine at Loyola University Maryland once participated in a discussion of Medicaid fraud in Maryland.  He told me that the poverty pimps in attendance — the left-wing political activists employed by the myriad “nonprofit” organizations that help administer Medicaid — publicly made the argument that Medicaid fraud is a good  and needed thing because, in their opinion, the taxpayers are too stingy.  The federal government administers very little of the welfare state.  It has created and funded hundreds of these “nonprofits” to do the work for them, and they see their jobs as protecting and expanding Medicaid fraud, not policing it.  So that $1.1 trillion that DOGE has discovered is probably an underestimate.

The post $1.1 Trillion in “Improper” Medicaid Payments appeared first on LewRockwell.

Murray Rothbard was the chief architect of modern anarcho-capitalism, an uncompromising vision of a stateless society rooted in private property and voluntary association. He built upon classical liberal thought, particularly the ideas of John Locke and the individualist anarchism of 19th-century thinkers like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. However, unlike his predecessors, Murray fused these ideas with the Austrian School of economics, providing a rigorous theoretical foundation for the abolition of the state.

His magnum opus, Man, Economy, and State (1962), initially conceived as a textbook on Austrian economics, evolved into a groundbreaking treatise that systematically laid out the principles of praxeology—the science of human action, as developed by Ludwig von Mises. In this work, Murray extended Mises’s insights on the inefficiencies and coercion inherent in state intervention, arguing that only a system based entirely on voluntary transactions and private property could maximize individual liberty and economic efficiency.

Murray’s seminal book, The Ethics of Liberty (1982), further elaborated his libertarian philosophy by grounding it in natural law. He provided a radical yet logically consistent argument for self-ownership and absolute property rights, rejecting any form of state authority as an infringement on individual freedom. In this work, he also tackled controversial subjects such as children’s rights, punishment theory, and war, demonstrating the application of libertarian ethics to real-world problems.

Additionally, Murray was a fierce critic of statism and political compromises that diluted libertarian principles. His essays and books, including For a New Liberty (1973), articulated a vision of pure libertarianism that rejected the notion of a minimal state (minarchism) and instead proposed that all governmental functions, including law and security, could be provided through voluntary market mechanisms.

Murray was a pivotal figure in the resurgence of the Austrian School of economics in the 20th century. As a devoted student of Ludwig von Mises, he advanced the Austrian understanding of monetary theory, business cycles, and state intervention in markets. His work helped revitalize Austrian economics, making it a viable alternative to Keynesian and neoclassical schools of thought.

In America’s Great Depression (1963), Murray applied the Austrian business cycle theory to explain the causes of the economic crisis of the 1930s. He demonstrated how Federal Reserve policies, particularly credit expansion, artificially lowered interest rates, creating an unsustainable boom that ultimately led to a devastating bust. His critique of government intervention in the economy remains a cornerstone of Austrian economic analysis.

Another major contribution was his work on money and banking. In The Mystery of Banking (1983) and What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1963), Murray assailed fractional reserve banking, arguing it was inherently fraudulent. He favored a return to a 100% gold standard, believing that only sound money could prevent economic crises and state manipulation of the currency and wanted to end the Fed.

Murray also provided a sweeping historical analysis of economic thought in his massive treatise An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995). This work sought to reclaim the contributions of pre-Keynesian economists, especially the Spanish scholastics. He attacked the common view that Adam Smith was the founder of economics.

Murray was also an outstanding historian, specializing in American history.  His Conceived in Liberty is a monumental work that offers a revisionist and libertarian perspective on the American colonial period and the American Revolution. Comprising five volumes, the series meticulously traces the development of political and economic thought in America, emphasizing the struggles for individual liberty and resistance against centralized authority.  He presents a history that challenges conventional narratives, focusing instead on the role of radical libertarians and decentralist movements in shaping the nation’s foundation.

At its core, Conceived in Liberty provides a detailed and critical examination of the colonial era, from early European settlements through the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Murray argues that the American Revolution was not merely a struggle for independence from Britain but a deeper ideological conflict between libertarian principles and the forces of centralized government. One of the key themes in the series is the tension between liberty and authority. Murray strongly criticizes the mercantilist measures imposed by British colonial rule,  He does not reserve his criticism solely for the British; he also examines the post-revolutionary American government with a skeptical eye. He believed that, despite the rhetoric of liberty, many of the founding fathers were inclined toward centralization and the consolidation of power, particularly under the Constitution. In his view, the anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong central government, were the true defenders of liberty.

In addition to his broader historical analyses, Murray examined specific events through his libertarian perspective. For instance, in Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, he explores the connections between financial elites and government intervention, arguing that major historical events, such as wars and economic crises, were often driven by the interests of politically connected elites rather than the public welfare. This perspective aligns with his broader critique of state power and its tendency to serve the interests of a privileged few at the expense of the general population.

Murray was a strong advocate of historical revisionism, particularly regarding U.S. foreign policy. In “The Betrayal of the American Right,” he criticizes the shift of the conservative movement away from its non-interventionist roots. He was highly critical of American wars, arguing that they served the interests of the state rather than those of the people.

One of his more controversial positions was his opposition to U.S. involvement in World War II. Murray viewed the war as an unnecessary expansion of state power and believed that interventionism abroad inevitably led to greater domestic government control. He also argued that the Cold War was largely a creation of the American political establishment to justify continued military spending and interventionism.

Beyond his scholarly work, Murray was a dedicated teacher and mentor. His enthusiasm for engaging with young minds and his willingness to challenge mainstream academia set him apart as an intellectual leader. Although he spent much of his academic career in relative obscurity, marginalized by mainstream institutions, he cultivated a devoted following among students and scholars who sought an alternative to Keynesian and socialist orthodoxy.

Rothbard’s charisma and wit made him an engaging teacher, and he played a crucial role in inspiring a new generation of libertarian thinkers, such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Joe Salerno. He welcomed intellectual debates and encouraged rigorous inquiry, fostering a lively and open intellectual environment. His influence extended beyond the classroom, as he actively engaged with independent scholars, journalists, and activists who shared his commitment to liberty.

I had the great honor to be one of Murray’s closest friends and when I founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982, he was on board from the beginning. Murray was our Academic Vice President, and the Mises Institute has as its purpose to educate students in Murray’s ideas, as well as the ideas of Mises.

Beginning in the late 1980s, Murray and I founded the paleo-libertarian movement, which sought to fuse libertarian principles with a conservative social outlook. This approach was intended to build a broader political coalition against state overreach.

Murray was the greatest thinker and scholar I have ever met. He had a great sense of humor and was an unforgettable friend. I miss him every day of my life. “We shall not see his like again.”

The post The Great Murray Rothbard appeared first on LewRockwell.

Like most people, I am turned off by the stereotypical salesman personality. Saleswomen, too, although they are easier to tolerate if attractive enough. I know, I’m superficial. I’m not sure about transgender salespersons and their pronouns. But there is bound to be a receptive market for them in this crazed “Woke” society.

I was inspired to write this while thinking about Andrew Tate. I don’t really know why Tate is famous, much as I don’t know why most people who are famous are. I think he was, perhaps still is, some kind of professional kickboxer. At first glance, what he says makes some sense and is appealing, especially to emasculated, testosterone needy White males. Tate comes off as a White Nationalist, which is odd since he is half Black. Well, I guess if a Hispanic can lead the White Supremacist Proud Boys, anything is possible in America 2.0. Tate has come to rule the “Manosphere,” an online culture that revels in, and seeks to restore, the Patriarchy. From what I can determine, Tate wasn’t that successful of a fighter, but he rose to notoriety somehow. That’s one of the thoughts that nag at me the most; how so many celebrities become celebrities. And Tate is a perfect example of that.

Much of the alt media has embraced Tate. Candace Owens, for example, who is usually very sensible in my view, seems to adore him. Donald Trump’s latest hot but dubious lawyer, Alina Habba, was absolutely giddy over meeting Tate on a January podcast, gushing, “I’m a big fan!” Tate and his brother Tristan are currently wanted for rape and human trafficking in Romania, which has long been a hotbed of exploited women and underage girls. Along with his often astute politically incorrect public comments, Tate has been recorded as giving out demented advice to other males on how to get and “control” women. There is video of him describing how he has himself, and advises others to, choke and physically beat females to get them to “obey.” Perhaps more chillingly, he suggested doing this to stop them from leaving. More properly described as escaping. Tate is a misogynist if ever there was one.

But first and foremost, Andrew Tate is a pimp. Now, his half Black status qualifies him for this position. All pimps in real life are Black. Sorry, Hollywood, no one is buying your ridiculous caricatures of White skinhead pimps, any more than they buy your fantasies about White carjackers and Russian gangs oddly mimicking James Cagney-style lingo while ruling the streets of our big cities. So, the many conservatives who are supporting, even worshiping, Andrew Tate, are supporting and worshiping a self-proclaimed pimp. A White Nationalist with a Black daddy. And not just any Black daddy. We are told that Tate’s father was an international chess master. That’s right out of central casting. For all I know, maybe they also claim his White mother beat her Black husband, causing little Andrew to resent all women. The whole Tate phenomenon seems scripted. Someone or something “installed” him.

Now if you listen to Tate speak, in his unique accent that again sounds like it was developed on a Hollywood backstage, you get the idea that he’s selling something. I mean, he’s about as subtle as a used car salesman at the end of the month, struggling to meet his quota. Now what he’s selling isn’t exactly clear. Toxic masculinity? Bullying? Psychopathology? His aggressive, confrontational personality would work well in any sales industry. Insurance. Retail sales. And my own field of real estate. The top realtors are usually bullies. They know how to “close,” which translates into browbeating someone into making a decision. I would have sold a lot more properties if I knew how to “close” without being a bully. I just don’t know how to do that. But those that do somehow get good people to respect them while turning on the pressure. I’m positive Andrew Tate would be tremendous at applying pressure.

It often strikes me that we’re all selling something. Or we’re being sold. We’re buying or selling. Not products, but human beings. The worst of the lot, perhaps including Tate and certainly including powerful people all over the world, literally sell humans. Often children. For sex. Now someone has to buy these trafficked victims, but like the celebrities on Epstein’s forever unattainable official list, they remain unknown. I’ve had Cathy O’Brien and other trafficking victims on my podcast. O’Brien talked about Dick Cheney being among the notables who played an indescribably murderous version of “The Most Dangerous Game” with her and other child victims. For those not familiar with the story or film, it revolved around an eccentric man on a remote island who hunted humans. According to O’Brien, Dick Cheney hunted children. But he and his lovely daughter Liz criticize Trump, so millions simply shrug.

Our current president certainly is a salesman, selling everything from MAGA hats to Bibles. And plenty of people buy what he sells. No one sells a political agenda like Donald Trump. In his recent address to Congress, Trump did what he always does; brag incessantly about real and imagined accomplishments. Like a realtor claiming to be the “best” or the “top” agent in a given area, Trump makes sweeping claims that cannot be proven, or are contradicted by the evidence. He has said that we had the “strongest” border in history during his first term. In reality, he deported fewer illegals than Obama. Now he has extended that to say that during his first term, “we had the strongest economy this country has ever seen.” Now, it was certainly better than it became under Biden, but the strongest ever? In the 1950s-1970s, every job paid a living wage, and workers received regular raises, and chances for promotion. I’ll take that any day over the present rigged system, with its wealth disparity and cheap labor.

Trump has essentially “sold” his MAGA rhetoric to millions. He reaffirmed his commitment to free speech during that recent address to Congress. Now the Democrats, being philosophically opposed to free speech, were hardly going to applaud that. Not that they applauded anything from Trump, even the forlorn figures he trotted out to tug at our heartstrings during his speech. Conservative virtue signaling. But a few days after he declared how much he cherished free speech, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social, threatening to arrest and deport anyone on college campuses engaging in “illegal protests.” Because the Bill of Rights protects the right to peaceful assembly, there is no such thing as an “illegal” protest. Trump should know that better than anybody, given what happened to those protesting in his name on January 6, 2021. Translation; Trump will brook no criticism of Israel.

The “Woke” Democrats, on the other hand, are selling their own wares. They’re selling perpetual victimhood status. Be a survivor of anything from breast cancer to crack addiction. Sell it! If you’re Black, you’ve got a full arsenal. The nuclear weapon of virtue signaling; “racism.” No matter how rich and successful you are, claim that you’re still being held down. It pays to be a victim of “White Supremacy,” as all the unqualified Black figures on television prove so demonstrably. If you’re transgender, you are in a special class. They’re like multi-million dollar sales agents. And you can virtue signal while not even really “transitioning.” Ask “Lia” Thomas, breaking every women’s swim record imaginable with “her” penis tucked inside “her” swim trunks. In reality, the cultural overlords are selling sheer lunacy. And with the closing of so many mental health facilities, there are plenty of buyers.

Remember how, on Pee Wee’s Playhouse, there would be a running gag where a salesman would ring the doorbell, and Pee Wee Herman would scream in horror? That reflects how most people view sales figures, especially those trying to sell something door to door. I experienced the entire “pyramid” sales world years ago. I remember when Amway first entered the scene, and I went to several meetings, where pushy and confident sales personalities would brag about how successful they’d become. I tried A.L. Williams for a while, which was the insurance industry’s version of Amway, and even Herbalife, which I was naturally drawn to given my long time affinity for vitamins and natural supplements. It really disillusioned me when the founder of Herbalife, who was about my age, suddenly died. That’s really bad publicity for a group using a pyramid scheme to sell healthy products.

The basement of the sales world are those hapless telephone marketers. The ones who are told by their bosses that if they cold call 100 people, they should be able to make one sale. I don’t know anyone who has ever been receptive to cold calls like that, and bought whatever was being sold. Especially now, given that almost all the calls are from reps with thick Indian accents named Kyle. It doesn’t matter what they’re selling, no one is going to listen to their scripted pitch. When I started out as a realtor, my office advertised these incredibly cheap townhouses, but never listed the city, because they were close to a notorious prison. They generated most of the calls to the office, and we were instructed to answer, once the caller asked the logical question about the specific location, by saying that it was five miles south of a particular highway. I felt really stupid and dishonest doing this, and always broke the rule and disclosed the city. Have I mentioned that I’m not a great “closer?”

Almost everyone in the alt media, who has a large audience, sells things. They create online stores. Mostly vitamins, storable food, hats, shirts, etc. A number of these “influencers” are selling fear porn, just like the mainstream hacks on the Weather Channel. Dire predictions of doom. Be prepared! Many have a pay wall, where they use Patreon and other applications to offer paid subscribers additional content. To be fair, non alt media Fox News is hawking a pay channel- Fox Nation- where you can find things not on their regular network. Prostitutes have become respectable “sex workers” now, thanks to that ridiculous film somehow winning the best picture Oscar. Isn’t prostitution still illegal everywhere except for Nevada? Maybe there is a different legal standard for “sex workers?” Legal or not, “sex workers” are selling the oldest commodity in the history of civilization. One that’s always sold well.

Now we have online personalities, whether they are right-wing “influencers,” or young Tik Tok girls with no discernable talent, selling their personas. Not sure what they can possibly sell, beyond their looks. The most ambitious of these girls have created Only Fans accounts, where I guess lonely incels pay money to talk to them, or perhaps enjoy a flash of skin. Sounds easier than “sex work.” I have remarked before, with obvious frustration, about all the YouTubers who have hundreds of thousands, even millions, of subscribers, while providing “content” that is really nothing special. The same goes for all the people on Twitter/X with 50,000, 100,000, or a million followers. Who tweet the same kind of stuff I do, with far fewer subscribers. I know there’s a way to buy subscribers and followers, but do they all really do that? If you’ve watched Lex Friedman- Mr. Excitement- you know what I’m talking about. Maybe I’m just envious. It’s a capitalism thing, you wouldn’t understand.

Young men and women are selling themselves on dating apps. They used to sell themselves in person, at bars and parties, but I guess that’s rare now in America 2.0. And just like salespeople of all sorts use deceptive practices (like some despicable “investment counselor” creature that cheated me out of $8,000 from my retirement account), females especially on these dating sites are renowned for using old photos. When they weighed significantly less. Buyer beware, I suppose. Proud parents are invariably “selling” the abilities of their children, to coaches, relatives, and especially other parents. I bragged about my children as well. It’s natural. But it is a kind of sales pitch. To convince doubting family members that your child is an exceptional student. Or athlete. Or dancer. Or exceptionally attractive to the opposite sex. I don’t know, some Tik Tok mothers now probably “sell” how well their child is “transitioning.”

I always hated it when people used to ask me, at parties, or school functions, “so what do you do?” This is the standard opening for people to “sell” just what it is they “do.” I always answered “I’m a writer,” even though I hadn’t been published yet. And that was true. I have always been a writer. It’s what I am. I just never made any money at it for a long time, and make what amounts to a McDonald’s salary now doing it. Some people love to embellish their financial worth, to make you think they earn much more money than they do. Men especially love to “sell” you on how successful they are. This is particularly true if they suspect you may possibly be successful yourself. When I was really young, I told them I worked a hard physical labor job, pulling around 1,000 linen carts in the basement of a hospital. That usually ended the conversation. It’s no fun bragging, or wildly exaggerating, to a poor guy with a job like that.

Now you’re probably saying, hey, wait a minute, Mr. champion of the common man, aren’t you selling books? Don’t you hope for more paid subscriptions here on Substack? Aren’t you in effect “selling” your world view with everything you write? You’d be right, of course. I guess it’s hard to be alive without engaging in selling something, to someone. I once tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to “sell” small talk to attractive female strangers. Yeah, I probably even said “you have any fries to go with that shake?” a time or two. That was long ago, when such absurd lines weren’t a ticket to cancellation. Now, I am indeed selling myself as a writer and talker. But you’ll never see me badger anyone to buy anything I’m selling. If you’re reading this, then you’re interested at least to some degree in what I have to say.

“Everybody’s in show biz,” the Kinks once sang. I believe that everybody’s selling something. The Medical Industrial Complex is selling “healthcare,” and doctors sell tests, surgery and Big Pharma drugs. Casinos, the lottery, sports gambling, bingo- they’re all selling the notion that those who are living paycheck to paycheck- over 70 percent of the workforce- can make money quickly and easily, without having an ungrateful employer. The entertainment business sells you a world that is opposite to reality; with mixed race couples, kindly Black geniuses, powerful female fighters, and soft, pathetic White males who are subservient to all. The corporate world sells you a variety of subpar products at inflated prices. As one proud manager once told me, when I complained about a product, “What do you expect at that price?” I snappily shot back, “Well, I expected it to at least work!”

Read the Whole Article

The post Andrew Tate and the Art of Selling appeared first on LewRockwell.

So far, freer nations haven’t ended deprivations of life.

For now, Republican president Abraham Lincoln gets lauded for ending deprivations of blacks’ liberty, even though he provoked and escalated war, which caused deprivations of life, of free men’s liberty, and of property.

Meanwhile, many founders, and, later, Democratic presidents, were otherwise outstanding at protecting life, free men’s liberty, and property, but they now have their legacies fall under the shadow of their failures to take the actions they could have taken to try to end deprivations of blacks’ liberty.

Like liberty is better protected now, life will get better protected in the future. And like with liberty now, politicians’ widespread failures to take the actions they could take on life will look unconscionable and shameful.

Apart from during wars, liberty was deprived solely through slavery. In contrast, life is being deprived through health tyranny, abortion and IVF killing, and war.

Each can be remedied now.

Health Tyranny

mRNA covid therapies by design have made people’s bodies produce toxins, depriving many persons of life. These deprivations continue now. All mRNA therapies developed so far have had the same unsafe design approach, so as of now even more deprivations are coming.

If people had liberty to use proven-safe existing antivirals, antioxidants, steroids, and antibiotics, this would have prevented nearly all deprivations of life due to the gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 virus, lockdowns, and mRNA therapies.

Emergency declarations other than suspension of habeas corpus aren’t allowed by the Constitution. Following the Constitution’s rules would have prevented all deprivations of life due to lockdowns.

Protecting the right of trial by jury in suits at common law would have prevented every deprivation of life due to mRNA therapies, apart from possibly a few deaths in safety trials.

1. Revoke all authorizations to use therapeutics that have mRNA as an active ingredient. Enact rules and sanctions prohibiting the use of mRNA therapeutics.
2. Repeal national-government control over prescribing. Enact rules and sanctions prohibiting government control over prescribing and dispensing in all jurisdictions.
3. Repeal national-government emergency powers. Enact rules and sanctions prohibiting maintaining emergency powers, and using them, in all jurisdictions.
4. Repeal all product-liability exemptions.

Abortion, and In-Vitro-Fertilization Killing

On abortion and IVF killing, the wrong national-government action would deprive vastly more persons of life, likely for many more decades. The right action is to fully support the Constitution’s protection of life, by only enacting measures that, with no exceptions, prevent deprivations of life starting at fertilization.

On IVF killing, natural reproduction respects life. Keep treating it as legal for IVF producers to deprive persons of life, the way things are now, and IVF producers won’t up and change on their own anytime soon. But raise up a clear legal boundary, and IVF producers will change their practices to not deprive persons of life, and from there will innovate to make their pricing attractive.

1. Enact a national statute establishing that life begins at fertilization, and that all jurisdictions’ statutes on killing apply starting at fertilization.
2. Prosecute under state laws in national courts.
3. Outlaw abortion and IVF killing, starting at fertilization, by national criminal statute.
4. Allow urban-core regions where majorities of voters support abortion and IVF killing to secede from the national government.

War

Major wars have not been initiated when freer people have substantially outproduced the less-free people under enemy governments. If we severely limit our governments to leave our people maximally free to outproduce less-free potential enemies, common sense suggests that potential enemies’ government people will prefer to stay alive. The available evidence also supports that they will. If it’s true that they will, then increasing our freedom will be the primary change that ultimately prevents major wars. So to prevent wars and limit any deprivations due to wars, economic power is primary.

Other actions seemingly more-directly tied to wars are secondary but are needed too.

1. Stop enforcing and formally repeal all national-government regulations. Outlaw and enforce against all regulations in other jurisdictions.
2. Order and enact that Fed people shall keep the money quantity
3. Formally repeal all statutes on the Fed, legal tender, and alternate stores of value.
4. Enact only overall total appropriations. Executively allocate budgets as appropriate to enforce the constitutional rules and sanctions.
5. End payments on national debt other than on the debt owed to USA retirees.
6. End transfer payments to any organizations—to other nations, other government jurisdictions, non-government organizations of all kinds, etc.
7. End all tariffs.
8. Repeal all infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. Enact a statute formally outlawing such infringements, and enforce this in all government jurisdictions and in all other organizations.
9. End all involvement in war without congress-passed rules-of-engagement cards and a congress-passed war declaration. Enact rules-of-engagement cards. If ever declaring war and fighting war, make the sole purpose be to destroy the enemies’ governments.
10. End all procurement of current-generation production weapons. Research and test weapons in secret, in rapid design cycles as if we were currently threatened by existential war.
11. Stop enforcing and formally repeal all treaties. Close and repeal all foreign bases and embassies.
12. Enact and enforce rules prohibiting each of China government people’s unconventional-warfare actions that is currently recognized. Give these rules force with one sanction: whenever any of these rules is being broken, all trade with China people shall be prohibited. Each time an additional warfare action is recognized, enact and enforce an additional rule that prohibits the additional action.
13. Repeal all existing legislative-house rules, eliminating the current committees. Ratify legislative-house constitutions modeled on the Constitution. In them, replace states with working groups, at most one per Constitution clause. Add a rule that each existing statute and new bill is constitutional only if it passes all of the following simple pass/fail tests: (1) no misleading parts; (2) only uses powers enumerated for the national government; (3) no delegation of legislative power; (4) no grabs of executive power; (5) no grabs of judicial power; and (6) not noncritical, complex, or long, and not helping make the total corpus of law incomprehensibly complex or long. With the new senate constitution, like with the Constitution, filibuster cloture would violate the constitution.
14. Repeal all statutes that interfere with customers’ control of health-product producers. Outlaw any such interference, and enforce this in all government jurisdictions.
15. Repeal all statutes that require employers or individuals to pay in towards individuals’ entitlements. Amend statutes to promise the lifetime benefits that correspond to the lifetime payments that were made up to the amendment date. Enact a statute formally authorizing the sale of government assets and providing model terms of sale.
16. Repeal existing statutes on patents and copyrights. Enact a new statute giving new rules for disclosures and durations: Grant patents only if the grantees provide open access to all business data on the monopoly-protected products, and only as long as the grantees maintain open access to all business data as business data continue to develop. Establish limited patent and copyright durations of 3 years.
17. Enact and enforce rules requiring that each state government must provide state residents a constitution that enumerates limited powers, vests all the legislative power in the legislature, defines separated and offsetting powers, and requires oaths like in the Constitution, which require officials to use their offsetting powers.

Executives are called on to take decisive actions. They naturally lead. They naturally emphasize some main areas and propose measures that could be a good start.

Legislators represent different groups of people and have different skills and experiences. They naturally work in groups. They can flesh out fuller ranges of innovative ideas, and develop rules and sanctions that can provide multiple independent protections.

Executives should use their powers the best they can, and legislators should go them one better. In the end, of the various areas they can focus on, all others are trumped by life.

The post Life Trumps All appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the post-conciliar age, there is often a tendency to look to the times preceding the Second Vatican Council and find attitudes that we can blame the whole crisis on. This is not an attitude unique to those who seek to save the Council from the “Spirit of the Council”; it is also found among traditionalists, who I believe don’t wish to seem unhinged by pretending that all our problems began in the 1960s. One of the so-called problems that can be presented is what is said to be the over-emphasis of Thomism. This, of course, was a primary point of the Nouvelle théologie theologians who repeatedly stressed the need for us to embrace an attitude of Ad fontes, oftentimes going to the sources around St. Thomas entirely. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, speaking of the Nouvelle theologians said of them “We do not think that the writers whom we have discussed abandoned the doctrine of St. Thomas. Rather, they never adhered to it, nor ever understood it very well.”[1] But those who decry the over-emphasis of St. Thomas now do so in different ways and are much more subtle.

For example, Bishop Barron, while calling himself a Thomist, decries the “closed Thomism” of the past which closes itself off as a self-contained system, but promotes an “open Thomism,” which allows for the simultaneous embrace of contemporary theologians like Balthasar or the embrace of phenomenology. Another way is by means of some elements of Eastern Catholicism, insisting on having their own means of theological and philosophical thought as we can see in one of the foundational documents of Eastern Catholicism, “The Courage to be Ourselves” of the Melkite Archbishop Tawil, which states that the East must not copy the theology of the West.

These attitudes, while potentially being able to be taken in a certain tolerable sense, has led to the exaggeration of such sentiments, often stemming from a poor understanding of the history and terms of the philosophical and theological topics involved. One still finds on the parochial level many priests who know more of Rahner or Kant than they know of St. Thomas, while perhaps paying lip-service to the contributions of the Saint. Similarly, I have encountered some Eastern Catholics who take the statement of Archbishop Tawil to mean that Thomism has no place for Eastern Catholics, and that they are free to accept everything within Eastern Orthodoxy, including a denial of the Filioque, as implied by Melkite Archbishop Zoghby.[2] It nowadays seems quite fashionable to say that one may be a Thomist as long as he realizes that he is on the same footing as everyone else, and acknowledges an egalitarian rule of theological and philosophical schools. But is this what the Church teaches?

An Already-Established Tradition

The most pre-eminent work on the authority of St. Thomas has already been written, and it would be foolishness and hubris to attempt to do a better job. This work was The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Santiago Ramirez, O.P. in 1952. I do not aim fully in this article to reproduce his treatise, but merely to summarize some of the essential points of his work, examine the pre-conciliar[3] teachings on the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas and use these findings as a basis to evaluate the present controversies in our time. In general, I wish to defend the claim given by Ramirez that “the slightest digression from Aquinas is neither permitted nor tolerated; but the Church urges and strongly praises fidelity in following him, even in minor matters.”[4] Further, I here also reiterate the claim made by the pre-conciliar manuals[5] that a doctrine, by virtue of being held by St. Thomas, while not reaching the theological note of de fide or theologice certa, still holds a unique authority and “can and must be held safely, with simple assent, while also respecting the opposite opinion of another School or Doctor.”[6]

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Authority

To understand the authority of the Angelic Doctor we must first distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic authority both in the philosophical and theological realm. Ramirez explains this as follows “One is intrinsic or scientific and is measured by the internal mental stature of the writer and the intrinsic doctrinal validity of his work. The other authority is extrinsic or canonical and is measured in a particular way by the approbation and commendation of the Teaching Church.”[7] In the former sense, we say that a man has intrinsic authority based on the stature of his work, and his ability in his science. In theology we also say that one has this intrinsic authority based on the sanctity of one’s life, and on this point, we see it reiterated time and time again by the Dominican school of thought and interestingly also in the East with its emphasis on sin darkening the intellect or the nous, and knowledge of divine things stemming from interior union with God. In the latter sense we say that a man has extrinsic authority based on statements from another. One could speak here of even having extrinsic authority in that other learned men give someone repute, which is certainly the case for St. Thomas, but I only wish here to look at the extrinsic authority that St. Thomas has from the teaching of the Church, a special kind of extrinsic authority often called canonical authority.

The Intrinsic Authority Considered

When we consider the intrinsic authority of St. Thomas, is there a man in the world who would so foolishly doubt the outstanding nature of St. Thomas’s intellect? Could anyone read and thoroughly understand the Summa Theologica or the Summa Contra Gentiles and come away with the idea that St. Thomas was of a simple-minded nature? We ought to here consider the very fact of his vast understanding not just of one linear school but of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius[8], St. Augustine, Boethius, Plato, Aristotle and the Islamic commentaries on them. He further displayed his command over the philosophical world by himself writing extensive commentaries on many of the works written by these men. I find it is common for Thomists within academic circles to point to Leo XIII’s excellent encyclical Aeterni Patris to establish the excellence of St. Thomas, and this encyclical is certainly to be admired for its revival of the Angelic Doctor. But this is not the only document we might use, but rather we can point to many documents, such as Studiorem Ducem of Pope Pius XI, who at length discusses how St. Thomas excelled, thoroughly treated and answered each of the prevalent issues of the Philosophical and Theological schools. The Pontiff, among a long list of praises for the saintly Doctor, tells us:

His teaching with regard to the power or value of the human mind is irrefragable.

The metaphysical philosophy of St. Thomas, although exposed to this day to the bitter onslaughts of prejudiced critics, yet still retains, like gold which no acid can dissolve, its full force and splendor unimpaired.

There can be no doubt that Aquinas raised Theology to the highest eminence, for his knowledge of divine things was absolutely perfect and the power of his mind made him a marvelously capable philosopher. Thomas is therefore considered the Prince of teachers in our schools, not so much on account of his philosophical system as because of his theological studies. There is no branch of theology in which he did not exercise the incredible fecundity of his genius.[9]

We ought to also mention here the sanctity of St. Thomas Aquinas in both his thought and in his life. The stories of St. Thomas’ sanctity are well known including his mystical experiences and his steadfast devotion towards purity earning him the title of Angelic Doctor. We might also speak of his many miracles, of which Pope John XXII said after the canonization of St Thomas:

Why should we seek more miracles? He has performed as many miracles as he wrote articles. Truly this glorious Doctor, after the Apostles and the early Doctors, has greatly enlightened the Church.[10]

But we also owe St. Thomas a great debt for the great Spiritual Tradition of the Church, providing us with clear principles for Mental Prayer. It is here sufficient to recommend one read the short book of Father Fahey, Mental Prayer According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which shows clearly how Thomistic thought thoroughly animates and provides great light to the spiritual life. It was this knowledge of the Thomistic influence that led Pope Benedict XV in 1921 to say of progressing in the spiritual life that it is “absolutely necessary, then, to repeat oftener what Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church have taught us on this subject, taking as our guide St. Thomas Aquinas.”[11]

It is with this understanding that we might not only say that St. Thomas has a great degree of intrinsic authority but that he has the highest intrinsic authority, and this is confirmed by Pope Leo XIII who teaches in his Encyclical Aeterni Patris:

Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, born on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas (emphasis mine).

Read the Whole Article

The post The Universal Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas appeared first on LewRockwell.

“How can the right be so wrong?” This refreshingly provocative pun serves as the opening salvo in British author Douglas Murray’s broadside against MAGA’s stance on Ukraine. Murray, undeniably gifted with words — if less so with ideas — initially led me to suspect that this was a lazy editor’s bait, cast to hook as many closeted neocons as possible. Sadly, the rest of his piece proved me wrong.

In it, we never learn exactly how MAGA gets it so wrong regarding Ukraine because Murray busies himself chasing fringe conspiracies instead of addressing core arguments head-on.

For starters, he conveniently sidesteps the clear point Trump made directly to Zelenskyy last week in the Oval Office: continuing this path risks World War III and nuclear annihilation, while American taxpayers pour hundreds of billions annually into a bloody stalemate that claims two thousand lives each week — all without any clear resolution.

Instead of addressing the undeniable practical concerns of the present, Murray bases his argument on a perceived MAGA shortsightedness about the past. He contends that Ukraine only entered American consciousness twice in the past decade — through Hunter Biden’s shady dealings and Trump’s impeachment over a phone call with Zelenskyy. In doing so, he implicitly accuses MAGA supporters of behaving as if the war started in 2022. Ironically, by overlooking two critical issues consistently raised by MAGA — the U.S. support for the EU-driven overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russia government in 2014 (the Euromaidan affair) and NATO’s relentless eastward expansion — Murray himself might be guilty of such oversight.

As is often true, the accuser unwittingly exposes more about himself. Murray belittles MAGA as “mainly online,” insinuating that by remaining outside established media narratives, they are susceptible to Russian propaganda. It’s the tired ‘Russian hoax,’ now dressed up in its latest ‘fierce and brave’ op-ed guise.

Murray wastes further paragraphs highlighting absurd fringe theories he claims are central to MAGA beliefs — such as Ukraine not being a “real country” or Ukrainians not being a “real people” — only to undermine legitimate concerns around Ukraine’s deep-seated corruption and the troubling neo-Nazi elements within its army.

He deeply regrets episodes like Hunter Biden’s Burisma scandal and the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating him — not for their substance, but because they unfairly, in his view, cast Ukraine as corrupt.

To top it off, he suggests that the online right “became bored” with the conflict. Bored with two thousand deaths a week? Perhaps Murray enjoys watching young men shoot each other from the comfort of his couch — but appalling is hardly appealing to everyone. At least not always.

The price tag for World War II was sixty million lives. Today, the markup with a nuclear power involved would be much higher. Is Murray ready to write that check? Just so we’re clear.

Neoconite in Shining Armour

I’m not quite ready to label Douglas Murray a woke globalist, which is a worrying sign that the neocons aren’t sending us their best — even when they are. Still, he’s bold enough to voice their latest swan song.

He champions what he calls a “Republican principle,” asserting that tanks should not roll unchecked into an “allied country.” Since there’s no formal defense treaty binding the U.S. and Ukraine, he presumably refers to the “U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership,” which explicitly references NATO’s 2008 declaration affirming Ukraine will join NATO.

However, Murray, perhaps blinded by his own briliance, contradicts himself: if he advocates for U.S. intervention based on NATO obligations, he cannot simultaneously deny that NATO expansion—the Holy Grail for neocons—is a fundamental factor driving the conflict, nor can he ignore its influence on MAGA criticism.

He praises the “old guard” Republicans who asserted themselves “pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin,” while decrying the MAGA Republicans “veering in a different direction.” In his eyes, anything short of full support for continued fighting in Ukraine must stem from historical ignorance, vulnerability to Russian propaganda, or — heaven forbid — a rejection of neoconservative dogma.

Here, Murray’s superficial understanding is glaring, as he mistakenly views MAGA as an offshoot of neoconservatism or believes conservatism began when history supposedly ended in the early 1990s.

What else does Murray accuse MAGA of misunderstanding? He mocks the idea that moderation or peace could be effective solutions, reducing the conflict to a beauty pageant between Putin and Zelenskyy — good versus evil, with no middle ground. You either back Ukraine wholeheartedly or you’re just a Russian dupe.

Is MAGA wrong to highlight that Zelenskyy overtly campaigned for Biden, thereby politicizing U.S. support? And what about the $61 billion Ukrainian aid package Congress passed last April, presumably as a stopgap until Trump’s anticipated return to the White House could end the war? Apparently, these are also trivial details.

To bolster his black-and-white narrative, he concedes — though fleetingly — Zelenskyy’s and Ukraine’s flaws, yet insists Russia and Putin are far worse: dictatorship, corruption, hypocrisy regarding Christianity, forced conscription, and fraudulent elections. All true, of course — but irrelevant to MAGA’s plea for peace.

His MAGA critique never transcends a simple matter of picking sides in an imaginary moral quandary. He fails to question the trajectory of the conflict, its true costs, or the potential outcomes. Murray’s fundamental mistake lies in assuming that ‘correctness’ in this conflict is determined by the ‘team’ you’re supposedly cheering for.

Read the Whole Article

The post Douglas Murray Is Wrong on Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.

“A simple but extremely powerful tactic – a mass disabling event from the perspective of technocracy – would be for a new social norm to cascade, whereby as many people as possible, got rid of their ‘smart’ (slave) devices and stopped voluntarily hooking themselves up to the control grid and feeding it information on all areas of their lives. There is a reason why these devices are designed to be highly addictive; notifications, for instance, create ‘short-term, dopamine driven feedback loops’, as the vice president for user growth for Facebook admitted. In that respect, society urgently needs to kick the habit” – David A. Hughes

David A. Hughes, University of Lincoln, UK, in his examination of the 2020 Pandemic and accompanying political coup, titled COVID-19 Psychological Operations and the War for Technocracy (2024), calls for individuals to pull the plug on their smart phones as a mass act of worldwide ‘revolution’ against the global technocratic attack that began in 2020.  Hughes asks:

“We are in a race against time. Technocracy’s bio-digital gulag is at an advanced stage of construction, with its CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), Internet of Bodies, smart cities, social credit scoring, ESG’s (Environmental Social Governance), 5-G (fifth generation) networks, etc. starting to materialize around us. Will enough people, in the wake of the ‘COVID-19 operation, be able to see what is happening and take decisive action to stop it, before it is too late (and irreversible)?”

Americans are not aware that we are on the verge of the elimination of a transactional economy based on two-party free market exchanges (using cash and checks) to be replaced by all-digitized crypto script that will allow a third-party into all transactions in the U.S. –the Bank of International Settlements — through its largest “stakeholder” the New York Federal Reserve Bank.  What this means is that money as free market currency will die and be replaced with an electronic totalitarian system of controlled transactions by central banks.  Moreover, German banking economist, Dr. Richard Werner, reports the eventual goal of CBDC is the replacement of all brick and mortar banks with a world bank and the implanting a chip under the skin, to exert total control over everyone except a tiny fraction of elite controllers worldwide. But fear about embedded chips being mandated seems exaggerated because they would require voluntary acquiescence as they can be “foiled” with simple tin foil.

Former U.S. HUD undersecretary and CBDG opponent, Catherine Austin Fitts, asserts that fiscal policy (spending) will no longer be a matter of congress or legislatures at the state and local level. Instead, reserve banks will take over fiscal policy and impose limits on spending at the individual level controlled by artificial intelligence systems. Market choices will become limited.  This will be guided by a policy of austerity that intentionally decreases the supply of foods, goods and services to inflate prices that disproportionately enrich oligarchs.

Augustin Carstens of the Bank of International Settlements has openly stated precisely what it plans to do with CBDG:

“We intend to establish (a system) equivalent with cash. With cash we don’t know who’s using a $100 bill or $100 peso today.  The difference with CBDG is the central bank will have absolute control of rules and regulations over use of CBDG and the authority to enforce those rules”.

CBDG Will Vastly Lower Standard of Living

CBDG will require a massive amount of more electricity to transfer funds (note: checks typically require 1 to 2 days to clear the bank while using a debit card takes up to 5 days, to assure the same money is not used twice). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that the current amount of energy required for a credit card transaction is 1 thousandth of a kilowatt hour (1/1,000 kwh). But a bitcoin transaction will involve extra “proof of work” and/or “proof of stake” verification requiring 1,000 kilowatt hours, or one million times more energy expended per transaction (the average US home uses about 900 kilowatt hours per month).  At the current average cost of electricity of 16 cents per kilowatt hour in the U.S, this would equate to $16 dollars per transaction not the existing two-tenths of a cent. There were 18.5 trillion bank clearinghouse transactions in 2022.

The cost of this system would be economically unrealistic and would be a disguised excise tax that would circumvent local voter approval (e.g., California Proposition 218 Utility Users 4.5% Tax on electricity and phone usage).  Nonetheless, a central bank, that is privately-owned not a state bank, and not Venmo or Visa, would be electronically authorizing each transaction according to climate change energy efficiency goals to limit where those funds can be spent.  The exponentially higher cost is not purely for the crypto commercial transaction but for establishment of a draconian mechanism of totalistic social control.

Catherine Austin Fitts further reports that by 2015 the New York Fed Bank had pirated $21 trillion out of the US and its pension systems and social security fund investments to supposedly protect it from the uncontrolled spending by the US Congress. This was verified by Professor of accounting Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University.  However, Pres. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) task force is not attempting to recover the $21 trillion removed by bankers from pension and Social Security-Medicare fund investments.

CBDG is effectually, a skimming operation meant to confiscate and redistribute a portion of the amount of funds from each transaction by the BIS to its globalist and climate change cronies. An historical example of this mafia like shakedown racket is ancient Rome mentioned in the Christian apocalyptic Book of Revelations and its obligatory ritual to give divine honors to Caesar.  All Roman citizens were required to have the “name of the beast” tattooed on their right hand or forehead and worship a statue of the emperor before they could buy or sell essential commodities, under penalty of execution (see Bruce W. Winter, Divine Honors for the Caesars, 2015, chapter 12). The modern analog to this tattooing is the COVID-19 vaccination certificate as a “mark of the beast” required to keep one’s job in the military, in academia and public schools, and medicine.

Where this emerging digitized transaction system is misunderstood by the public is that it would be the reverse of Marxism by robbing the value of money from the labor of the working class (proletariat) and replacing it with global banker Fascism and a new feudalistic caste system. One only needs to read William Dalrymple’s 2022 book The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence and the Pillage of a Country, to understand what the disastrous consequences of a corporation and world bank running a country would be.

Likewise, in his book The Princes of Yen: Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Economy (price: $200 to $2,000), Richard Werner discovered the 23 years of slow growth in Japan was caused by concentration of power in the central bank.

Resistance Requires Class Consciousness of a Silent War Against the People

To untether us from smart phones, Hughes says we will first have to cultivate class consciousness. But Americans are mostly not cognizant of social class division between the elites and the mass class because of being socially conditioned that America is an egalitarian classless state.  Hughes states we are largely unaware that we are the target in an asymmetric (one-sided) Omni War war hell-bent on depopulation imposed on us by elites.

For example, we are mostly unaware that by government privatizing email, social media, and money transactions, we surrender our rights to free speech and privacy because private corporations are not subject to constitutional protections and the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution.

Alternatives to Smart Phones for Blow Back

Most of us feel we lack enough political power and are too divided and alienated by elitist policies to find anyway to meaningfully resist the emerging takeover of global banking as a system of total world control. Hughes calls for foregoing your smart phone as the only way to gain power against this emerging world banking system.

However, there are several technologies emerging as an alternative to trackable smart phones (I have no financial interest in the products or services listed below and do not endorse them):

Privacy Smart Phones have no 32-digit alphanumeric code for tracking and have a real kill-switch rather than the existing off button that nonetheless allows listening and visual reconnaissance. The Unplugged privacy phone is an example of such a dumbed down phone.  Advertising excerpt:

“The Unplugged © Privacy Weave cell phone stops the resale and tracking of your data, cold. It is powered by LibertOS, our proprietary privacy Operating System, with custom precise controls, advanced encryption, a no trace VPA (Virtual Payment Address), (text) Messenger, and a robust antivirus. You’ll find options to select your desired network modes to disable 5G, simply by selecting an option that includes 2G, 3G, or 4G, and is GPS (global positioning system) capable. Also provides anonymous browsing” – Unplugged.com.

Other privacy phones include: Blackphone Privy 2.0, Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, Linux based Fair Phone S, Murena 2, K-iPhone for VOIP network ($6,000), Bittium Tough Mobile 2C, Sirin Labs Finney UI blockchain phone.

Designated Privacy Carriers – Privacy phone expert Rob Braxman says what the government calls KYC (know your customer) is surveillance capitalism. The mobile phone is an ID card and requires you to authenticate your ID. Your phone traffic is captured by government. However, Braxman explains that no one is providing choice to users of alternative privacy carriers such as SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) over the internet or VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol). – see The Privacy Solution No One Knows About.

Dumbed-Downed Smart Phone – Braxman also provides information on how to dumb down your smart phone to provide privacy. Ashton Womack how to make a cell phone a dumb phone mainly by dumping apps from your smart phone.

Gabb Network and Phones for Kids – Gabb is a cellular network that also offers kids phones not connected to the Internet.

No Identity Phone Number – Braxman also provides a service of issuing you a phone number that never reveals your ID and thus can’t be tracked – see Brax.Me App (@robbraxman).

Flip Phones – Smart phone consultant Ashton Womack online describes her experience in using a flip phone for one year. One must be careful because even flip phones can be made into smart phones.

As I was finishing this article, I got an email on my cell phone advertising Zelle to encourage me to abandon writing checks and using cash. I now pay all my utility bills by paper check (not electronic check) sent via the U.S. mail and buy food with cash as much as possible. I was told by a friend that the delivery time for ordering checks is backlogged because so many people are shifting back to using checks.

The post Technocracy Mass Resistance Starts with Swap Out of Smart Phones for Privacy Phones appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is a phenomenally good website that provides daily news-reports on the basically dictatorial inner workings of, and mass-mind-control methods being imposed by, the UK and U.S. armaments-manufacturers’-controlled government, which government’s #1 priority — and which therefore constantly guides its actions and its propaganda — is to constantly increase the sales-volumes and thus profits of their country’s weapons-manufacturers and other ‘national-security’ industries (and therefore the U.S. and UK are controlled BY their “military-industrial complex,” instead of controlling it like an authentic democracy WOULD).

The site is called “UK Column” and it is (except for a few installments, such as this one) strictly behind a paywall, but when they interview the great investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley, who specializes on Syria-related matters, she retitles the entire video and presents non-paywalled access to that day’s entire edition of UK Column at her non-paywalled Substack site. The original title is “UK Column News Extra – 5th March 2025”. She re-titled the video “The Zionist war against Turkey in Syria – David’s Corridor and the Kurdish alliance: The full news from UK Column yesterday”. Here it is, in excerpts I have selected to transcribe here, which relate specifically to how the empire imposes its tyranny upon the masses:

At 16:20, the announcer said “I wanted to focus on the legal framework that they [the intelligence services] operate under, because they said the Intelligence Services Act 1994 sets out GCHQ’s function as a foreign-focused signals intelligence agency. I just want to point out that that would seem to be incompatible with the integrated operating concept, which IS military doctrine in the UK at the moment, and which removes the distinction between foreign and domestic focus. [And think of Edward Snowden’s case in the U.S. — the same thing.] And we should keep in mind that 77 Brigade, which was claimed by the Government to operate only on foreign shores, was retasked domestically on a whim during covid. So, I’m uncertain whether we should accept the implication of this initial claim by GVHQ. The second thing that they say here is that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 governs the use and oversight of investigatory powers by law enforcement agencies. But the amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act permit them to do all kinds of unpleasant things, and so I encourage everybody to read that document. It’ll be available in the show notes, and we’ll have more to say about this in Extra as well. Sandra [Sandy Adams], what have you got for us following on from Brian’s [Brian Gerrish’s] report on Ukraine on Monday [NOT paywalled — and it displays the documentation for most of what she says here]? Thank you, Mike [Robinson]. Well, I’ve been looking at, you know, what’s happened in social media this week. We sort of saw what happened in 2020 with covid. It’s almost as though the war in Ukraine and the Trump Zelensky theatre show has really triggered people, it’s become almost the covid 2.0. We have to remember that it’s the interest of the Deep State [the billionaires] to keep us all divided [against one-another so as NOT to be fighting against the Deep State itself]. I mean, I’ve heard people arguing, you know, all the time. And it’s important we don’t fall for that. So, I thought it would be just good to remind ourselves of the cover-up of corporate profiteering going on in Ukraine and the real reason for this devastating and corrupt war. Obviously, we know that Starmer has just agreed to send more UK taxpayers money to Ukraine this week. Investment so far to over 12 billion [pounds] since 2022, in the alleged help in their fight for democracy. Most of this money, as we know, isn’t actually going to Ukraine at all. Instead it’s being funneled into the pockets of defense contractors, multinational corporations and financial giants like BlackRock. This is a racket, it’s a system designed to enrich the elites [the billionaires, otherwise known as “the Deep State”] while keeping Ukraine in a cycle of war, debt and economic servitude.” (19:00).

She then talked about the main beneficiaries being “Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, and General Dynamics, all receiving massive military contracts.” Then she listed some of the (but much smaller, such as the Thales Group) British contractors who are cashing in on Ukraine. “What happens after the war — well, that’s where even bigger profits come in. BlackRock has already signed agreements with the Ukrainian government to advise on post-war reconstruction. They’re helping structure investment funds to rebuild Ukraine. … Obviously, BlackRock and its investors will control how rebuilding funds are going to be spent.”

So: this is entirely an insider’s game. She refers to “elites” but what those ARE is the most-super-rich individuals in America and UK. They are the wealth-“elite,” not any other type of “elite.” (Like she said, “it’s a system designed to enrich the elites.”) They are the mere thousand-or-so individuals who are routinely in contact with one-another in order to negotiate deals that will benefit both of them regardless of what it will do to their competitors or to the public; and, so, for themselves, it’s a win-win game (which is WHY their wealth constantly increases at a far higher percentage-rate per year than the nation’s GDP does), though for their competitors it is a win-lose game — and for everybody else it wil be a lose-lose game because all of the external costs will be paid by the public in higher taxes and higher federal debt (which will be paid by following generations of the public). (“It’s the same IMF debt trap that’s been used in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Iraq. … Ukraine … is being colonized by economic means.”)

Ukraine’s colonization started on 20 February 2014 when Obama grabbed Ukraine and started the ‘civil war’ there that when it became TOO threatening to next-door Russia, precipitated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ten years later. And here was how Ukraine’s ‘civil war’ started that day regarding specifically the Crimeans (and which therefore caused its breakaway from Ukraine).

As regards the question of when and why the UK/U.S. war to take control specifically over Russia historically began, see here. It goes back to Cecil Rhodes in 1877, the origin of the “Special Relationship” between the UK and the U.S.

I shall close by noting that because (like I do) UK Column provides information that is almost 100% suppressed in other media, they (like I do when I always encourage readers to click onto any link when you doubt the veracity of a given allegation) discourage trusting ANY medium, but they instead advise viewers to fact-check any ALLEGATION:

Why should I trust the UK Column?

Put simply, you shouldn’t.

The question of whether or not to trust a news organisation is a false choice.

Making such a choice is promoted by government, the old media, and two new organisation types: the fact checker and the trust provider. It disenfranchises readers, viewers and listeners. It is based on the principle that if you trust the media organisation you are visiting, there is no need for you to check the information they present.

So we ask you not to trust us. Instead, view everything published here with a critical eye. Where possible, primary source material is made available for everything we publish: check it; make up your own mind.

I have fact-checked UK Column enough so that I place that site into the small category of ones I now DO trust. Since it is a video-site instead of a written one with allegation-specific links that can be fact-checked so easily as to simply click onto the given allegation’s link, I am especially reluctant to trust video sites (which are unable to provide such allegation-specific link-based access to a given source), but UK Column is one video-site that I do now trust.

Anyone who sub-contracts-out the ‘fact-checking’ is making a huge error, because the regime itself controls the ‘fact-checking’ ‘non-profits’ in order to censor-out sites such as UK Column, and this technique of mass-deceit is an important part of how the U.S./UK regime controls the empire. So, ONLY oneself can police truthfulness. This is not to say that there do not exist experts, but it IS to require ALL of them to be evaluated by one’s OWN investigation (spot-checking) of their alleged sources. Trust must NEVER be absolute; because, if one DOES trust someone ABSOLUTELY, then one is that person’s mental slave. No scientist is supposed to work that way: EVERYTHING is to be questioned ALWAYS. Otherwise, one is an authoritarian, or a person of mere faith. Intellectual freedom pre-supposes a constant skepticism about everything — absolute (100%) certainty about nothing.

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.

The post An Accurate Description of the UK-U.S. Empire appeared first on LewRockwell.

As the United States and Russia are engaging in talks to avoid the possibility of an uncontrollable escalation, the European Union and NATO keep doing the exact opposite. Brussels wants the war to continue, including by pushing for the deployment of its troops in Ukraine. Worse yet, as the diverging interests of the new Trump administration and the EU/NATO become more evident, the latter is now trying to appease Washington DC by portraying this as a “peace initiative”.

On the other hand, Trump and his team understand that the world is drastically different to what it was in the aftermath of the (First) Cold War. This is precisely why they’re far less belligerent toward Moscow (at least in terms of rhetoric) than was the case with the previous administration.

The EU/NATO is terrified of the prospect of being left to face Russian military power in Ukraine (and possibly beyond) on its own. To prevent that, Western European powers are now looking to escalate tensions in hopes of drawing the US back into a crawling confrontation with the Kremlin. However, as the Trump administration is still showing no interest to get involved, the EU/NATO is now pushing for a strategic escalation.

This is particularly true for French President Emmanuel Macron who is now talking about placing the “old continent” under the French nuclear umbrella. On March 5, he tried to justify this by claiming that “[President Vladimir] Putin is now threatening all of Europe” and declared that “Russian aggression knows no borders”.

“We are entering a new era. If a country can invade its neighbour in Europe and go unpunished, nobody can be sure of anything. Beyond Ukraine, the Russian threat is real – it affects the European countries,” Macron stated in a televized address, adding: “President Putin is violating our borders to assassinate opponents, manipulate elections.”

For decades, “evil dictator and bloodthirsty tyrant Putin” has been the political West’s go-to bogeyman for both foreign and domestic policy issues. Whether it’s elections, political instability, price hikes or even personal problems, look no further than Vladimir Putin. The “evil, bear-riding Russians” are coming for you and “the only way” to prevent it is to go to war with them, preferably thermonuclear.

According to the mainstream propaganda machine, if you think this sounds like total madness, you must be a “Putin troll”. Unfortunately, this is how the EU/NATO is trying to portray the ongoing crisis, which is why it’s effectively impossible for Russia to find anyone remotely reasonable to talk to in Europe. And they keep proving this each passing day.

Macron insists that the EU/NATO “need to prepare”. It would seem he’s trying to fill the power vacuum as the US is looking to shift its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific. The endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom seems to be supporting this initiative, as it falls perfectly in line with its strategy of pushing continental powers against each other.

This is why there have been numerous meetings and conferences in support of not only continuing but also escalating the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. However, conventional capabilities of Western European powers are nowhere near enough to match that of Russia (not even in Ukraine, let alone when the entire Russian military is taken into account).

“I want to believe that the US will stand by our side, but we have to be ready for that not to be the case,” Macron complained, adding: “France has to recognize its special status – we have the most efficient, effective army in Europe.”

He then stressed that his country “has nuclear weapons to provide to the broader Western alliance if called upon”. Macron went on to explain that he’s considering the possibility of expanding the French nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. He also cited the words of Germany’s (most likely) upcoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who recently stated that he wanted to discuss the possibility of extending French and British nuclear umbrellas to also include Germany.

It should be noted that Berlin already has American nuclear weapons stationed on its territory as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing policy. However, with the recent shift initiated by the new US administration, European member states still loyal to the anti-Trump Deep State seem to be looking for viable alternatives.

“We need reforms, we need to make choices, and we need to be brave,” Macron stated, adding: “[Merz] has called for a strategic debate on providing that same protection to our European allies… whatever happens the decision will be in the hands of the president of the Republic and the heads of the army.”

He also said there will be a meeting of the EU/NATO army chiefs in Paris next week, hinting this could be one of the matters they will be discussing. Besides the US, the UK and France are the only member states who have their own nuclear weapons. It should be noted that this initiative also means that the EU/NATO is fully aware that nuclear weapons are the only way to “even the playing field” with Russia’s conventional military power.

However, what this also means is that Moscow would be forced to respond with its own nuclear arsenal – by far the largest and most powerful in the world. In fact, the difference between the number of thermonuclear warheads in Russia and the US is larger than the combined arsenal of the UK and France (around 500).

London and Paris both have SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), with the latter also operating nuclear-capable aircraft. This is a lower level of deterrence than in countries like Russia, China, India and the US who have nuclear triads (aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles), without even considering the size of Moscow’s strategic arsenal which is upwards of a dozen times larger than the combined Franco-British stockpile.

It’s still unclear what exactly Macron has in mind when talking about extending this arsenal to the rest of the EU/NATO. If he’s talking about replicating (or even replacing) the US nuclear sharing policy, the Kremlin might not react immediately, as this would change little in terms of the strategic balance of power.

However, if Macron wants to deploy these weapons close to Russian borders, this changes the calculus entirely, as it would force Moscow to either reactivate some of the non-deployed warheads or make new ones (if not both, depending on how far the EU/NATO would go). What’s more, the Russian military also operates non-nuclear strategic weapons, specifically hypersonic missiles such as the new “Oreshnik”.

The entire political West lacks remotely similar systems, including the US (which, as previously mentioned, is slowly shifting its strategic focus away from Europe). In other words, the EU/NATO cannot match Russia even on a tactical or operational level, let alone strategic. However, it keeps poking the Bear and pushing for escalation on all three fronts.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

The post How Viable Is Macron’s Nuclear Umbrella Proposal? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mention a dystopia to most people and they’ll probably think of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Thought Police and Big Brother. That’s understandable, because there are worrying hints of it in our own society – are ideas like no-platforming, safe spaces and misgendering really so different from wrong-thinking and thought-crime? – but there’s a different kind of dystopia that’s a lot more common. Unfortunately it’s just as scary.

The word dystopia itself just means a society that’s unpleasant or frightening. That can mean a brutal, highly centralized authoritarian state like the one ruled by Big Brother’s Party (Orwell modeled it on the Soviet Union under Stalin) – but it can also mean a society where the rule of law has broken down (WROL – without the rule of law), and that’s a lot more common in the world today. For every North Korea there are half a dozen collapsed societies like Somalia or Pakistan. And, while it’s difficult to impose a one-party state and organize things to the point where you have absolute control over what people do and even think, it’s easy for a society to collapse. A natural disaster can do it – think New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Of course, that didn’t last; New Orleans is one city in a big, advanced country and the rule of law was quickly restored. But what if the government was weaker, or society was less stable to begin with? Or what if it isn’t one single event that causes the collapse, but years of neglect? Many countries are a disputed election or an economic crisis away from collapse – and there are even parts of the USA where the rule of law is too fragile to be taken for granted.

First Things First: Social Breakdown

If there’s one thing guaranteed to reduce a society to chaos, more or less instantly, it’s a sudden absence of cops. It doesn’t matter what kind of society it was to start with. For example, Canada is famously peaceful and friendly. What happened when the cops walked out? Nothing good:

“As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin’s anarchism. I laughed off my parents’ argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order.”

Unfortunately, police strikes are more likely than they’ve ever been, especially in the USA. Cops are under a lot of strain, and the media are against them right now. What happens if there’s an officer involved shooting, and under pressure from the media and far-left activists like BLM the officer is arrested? Is it that hard to believe the police could snap and walk out? And as soon as criminals realize the cops have gone home all hell would break loose.

In Montreal in 1969, the main problem was simple crime. Now there are political extremists to worry about, too. “Anti-fascist” protesters like Black Bloc are saying it’s acceptable to use violence against Nazis, and their definition of “Nazi” includes pretty much anyone right of Bernie Sanders. If you have a Trump 2016 bumper sticker, and suddenly the law isn’t being enforced, there are people out there who’ll take the chance to have a go at you – and your car, and your home, and maybe your family too. They’ll see this as the perfect chance to get revenge for all the imaginary wrongs you’ve done them, and maybe “redistribute” your property to “the people” – meaning themselves.

So, what can you do if law and order suddenly disappears and your area becomes a free for all?

What you can’t do is tool up and go on a mission to clear the streets of crime. There’s a good chance the law will be re-imposed at some point and people will be called to account for what they’ve done – and, as a law-abiding citizen, you’re more likely to get caught up in that net than someone from a gang or a far-left group.

What you need to do is take steps to protect yourself and everything that matters to you, but make sure that you can justify them later. That means your aim is to avoid confronting the lawless elements, but be ready to defend yourself if a confrontation is forced on you.

#1 Blend In

The first thing is try to blend in. If you and your home don’t stand out you’ll attract a lot less attention, and that can be all it takes to avoid being attacked. If there are leftist mobs rioting in the streets they’re going to focus on any home that looks like conservatives live there, so at the first hints of trouble you should do an outside check to make sure you aren’t being conspicuous. It might be tempting to make a visible show of support for the cops, president or whatever, but is that worth the risk of attracting attacks?

#2 Bug In

Another good way to avoid confrontations is to just stay at home as much as possible while the crisis is going on. This is one of the best arguments for being a prepper – you should already have the food supplies and other resources you need for this. If you don’t, now is a good time to start. There’s no point leaving it until a crisis is developing, because the stores will be full of people panic buying. Joining the last-minute shopping frenzy is actually a good way to get into trouble, because tempers will be flaring and you can expect outbreaks of violence as people fight over the last stocks of food. You’re much better off sitting that out in a well-stocked home.

The same applies to all the other essentials of life. If you already have medical supplies and plenty of ammo at home, you can fall back on those reserves and avoid the disintegrating outside world. If you have a generator and a water source you won’t need to worry about failing utilities (but keep the generator inconspicuous).

#3 Self-defense

In the worst case, though, you’re going to have to defend yourself. Don’t trust to luck on this; be prepared. Firstly, plan things out. Decide on a safe room for your family in the event of a home invasion or a riot outside. The best option for this is a room with solid walls and only one way in – a room at the end of a corridor is ideal, because you can cover the approaches. Clear the corridor of any heavy furniture that attackers can use as cover. Also try to choose a room that has one way in but an extra way out – for example a second-floor room with a rope ladder fixed below the window. If attackers set fire to your home that gives you a quick escape route.

Stay aware of what’s happening in your home. Keep the family together as much as you can, and do regular security checks to make sure windows and doors are secure – especially if you have kids.

Read the Whole Article

The post Five Things You Need to Do When There’ll Be No Rule of Law appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recently, Crisis Magazine Editor in Chief Eric Sammons published an article outlining the dire state of the Catholic Church in America. He showed that for every 100 new Catholics, more than 800 people leave the Church. In addition, he proved that it is even worse than the numbers suggest when we do a deep dive into sacramental participation and the like.

Simply put, the Church in America—and abroad because these trends are universal—is barely on life support and fading fast. To say that it is a crisis is an understatement; it is a super crisis, and Sammons is correct in saying that radical changes are needed. Now, my only criticism of his article is that he didn’t publish it while I was writing my forthcoming book on the crisis of Modernism, which would have made my research a little easier because he would have done much of it for me.

In any event, Sammons is correct that radical changes are needed. And he is correct to suggest a host of changes in practice, like reinstating Friday abstinence, returning to the Baltimore Catechism, and so forth. But I am going to go one step further than Sammons and say that if we want to avoid annihilation, we must return to Tradition.

This means a full return to the old ways in everything from liturgy to catechesis to public morals and even modesty in dress. We are on the edge of a cliff looking at a perilous fall, so perhaps it is time we turn around and walk back to regroup.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

We are utterly lost at sea, yet our leaders keep telling us to paddle forward, which they apparently would rather do than simply turn around and go back to shore. It is like they prefer the idea of being caught in storms and being swallowed up by sharks over the security of the civilization we left on dry land.

Now, I foresee a few objections which I ought to deal with right away. Yes, I know, everything wasn’t perfect before Vatican II and the changes to the Mass. Yes, I also know that going back to old ways doesn’t mean that everyone becomes a saint. I am also fully aware that it would be extremely difficult to put a return to Tradition into practice, which would include a lot of construction and realignment, and so on.

However, this way of thinking misses the point: we are facing a 700 percent negative ratio between new Catholics and former Catholics, so whatever we have been doing isn’t working and must be stopped.

Granted, the time before Vatican II wasn’t a golden age; if it was, we wouldn’t have had the revolution and aftermath of Vatican II. But, you know, wasn’t that the case before Vatican II? A 700 percent difference in Church membership.

One of the most annoying platitudes is the statement, “correlation doesn’t equal causation.” Well, actually, it often effectively does. Think about it; if you surround your children with drug dealers and put them in a bad school, wouldn’t this be a cause of their becoming a drug addict? No one would say, “Well, sure, you put them in a school where everyone did drugs and they were around lots of drug dealers, but you can’t say this had anything to do with their new drug habit because correlation doesn’t equal causation.”

This way of thinking is stupid.

Whatever you may think about what has happened since Vatican II, and whatever your hopes may have been about New Springtimes and New Pentecosts, it is time to embrace reality, and the reality is that we are in a Nuclear Winter, and it is self-inflicted. We are in this mess because we rejected Tradition in all its forms and embraced novelty. The embrace of novelty has created an environment where we are told everything is new and everything is renewal and everything is restoration, yet in reality everything is decay, and rot, and destruction. The only parts of the Church that are truly healthy are the places where Traditional liturgy and catechesis thrive.

Whenever I talk to Catholics who don’t attend an ancient liturgy but who say their parish is thriving, they invariably tell me that their parish either offers the Old Rite as well as the New Rite or that the New Rite is celebrated like it is the Old Rite in some way. In addition, their parish does processions, and they use old catechisms and perform other such traditional things. In other words, they do things the old way, and when they do certain new things, they do them like they do the old things.

Read the Whole Article

The post Tradition or Annihilation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Rough times, friends – the censorship is going to get more severe before it gets better.

I am not the only one being subjected to this.

Please bear with me as I work to get my work seen by everyone.

RISKING WORLD WAR III FOR A WOKE AGENDA?

Without being a fear monger I have tried for five years to warn the world as to the globalist takeover of all democratic nation states and institutions by globalist forces.

But it is such a large and pervasive scheme it is difficult for we – as average citizens – to even begin to grasp – and even harder for me as a writer to communicate.

Nevertheless it is a reality and has led to us as constitutional republics to be enslaved by nefarious forces without our knowledge.

I share material from other sources freely when I feel a source can encapsulate and describe what is happening in an understandable way which I cannot provide in essay format.

And because we live in a world where much of our communication is fed through the internet in the form of video this is going to involve the sharing of educational and informative videos.

Those who do not watch may consider that they are not fully informed as to the content of this essay.

Unless however the inmates have broken free and now run us and our institutions – this is presumably precisely why we have enforceable constitutions and the laws based upon them.

If an act is constitutional then it is allowed – if is is not constitutional then it is simply not allowed by anyone who is not a slave.

Time to put the inmates who have broken out of the asylum back where they belong.

The GLOBALISTS WOKE AGENDA had put the entire planet at risk – and the only rational and logical response is to put the escaped inmates under protective custody – under lock and key which serves to protect self and other.

The USA managed a last minute fail safe – by electing, in just the nick of time – the sane rational and intelligent and sensible approach being exhibited by the Trump administration – who have implemented immediate actions to reverse the deadly effects of the WOKE agenda on America.

But because sane and rational and logical individuals echo what I have been describing for five years – that this globalist takeover by the terminally WOKE – represents the reality of having all constitutional republics destroyed forever – with no accountability – and with no hope at all for preventing the collapse of our civilizations into anarchy and chaos.

The fact the globalist regime got as far as it did indicates vast foundational cracks in the system which underwrites our civilized societies.

These cracks indicate basic incompetence – and a basic failure of the social contract – the glue which allows us to live together on this earth.

They indicate that we must change – change now – and change with all the seriousness and wisdom and integrity we can possibly muster.

The Trump administration represents a major break with the illogical and irrational and irresponsible policies which led to this disastrous breakdown in the social order.

Read the Whole Article

The post Risking World War III – For a Woke Agenda? appeared first on LewRockwell.

What does the title of this article—not to mention each unusual word in it — even mean? This is not a rhetorical question. We urgently need to understand each term. A precise political philosophy underpins each. A combination of these interrelated philosophies has been embraced — either in part or in their entirety — by some of the most powerful people on the planet. If we misapprehend how these controllers and influencers think, we risk blindly accepting whatever world order they wish to impose — and end up wondering how and why we find ourselves subjected to it.

What did Elon Musk mean when he said he was “dark MAGA?” Exploring this question will certainly take us to a very dark conclusion. Yet, ironically, it is this very conclusion that, once seen in the right light, can liberate us.

This two-part series examines the genuine but misplaced hopes of the millions of US citizens who elected Donald Trump to his second non-consecutive term. Unbeknownst to them, they have voted to live in a Technate administered by what is called “gov-corp.” In so doing, they have taken another step toward a multipolar world order, or “New World Order,” as some have long called it.

Shortly before the November 2024 election, Elon Musk, speaking at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, announced, “I’m not just MAGA, I’m dark MAGA.” Only a couple of months earlier Trump had survived an alleged assassination attempt at the same Butler show grounds. Sharing the stage with “bullet-proof” populist hero Trump, an absolute shoe-in for the presidency, Musk seized his moment.

The Make America Great Again (MAGA) acronym is broadly understood. But Musk’s added adjective “dark” is little understood — and implies much more.

Explanations for his “dark MAGA” declaration have ranged from Musk pushing the Dark MAGA meme coin to Musk casting himself as a super-antihero or even an advocate of a violent fascist takeover of the US. None of these claims have addressed his more obvious reference. Musk is one of a cadre of technocrats behind the Trump presidency who promote the ideas encapsulated by the Dark Enlightenment.

Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal along with Musk, is probably the best-known proponent of the Dark Enlightenment while Musk is the best-known proponent of Technocracy. But, as we shall see in this article, these sociopolitical theories have considerable overlap and are mutually reinforcing.

Elon Musk’s Technocratic Heritage

In a 2021 SEC filing, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Tesla’s then-Chief Financial Officer Zach Kirkhorn officially changed their respective working titles to become the “TechnoKings” of Tesla. This might seem like nothing but irreverent fun—consider that Kirkhorn was also known by the Game of Thrones title of “Master of Coin”—but Musk certainly understands the gravity of Technocracy and the associated term “technocrat.”

Their careful choice of words is an important point emphasized throughout this article. While oligarchs like Musk and Thiel often express ideas in a seemingly flippant manner—or as if the ideas sprang from out of nowhere—these apparent offhand remarks are not meaningless. It is Aesopian language indicative of the core beliefs held by people like Musk, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, and other members of what Council on Foreign Relations think tank member David Rothkopf generously characterizes, in his book on the subject, as the “Superclass“: people who can “influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis.”

The “joke” is on us. Or, rather, on those of us who assume it’s all just a joke.

Both Musk and Thiel are members of the “superclass,” though “parasite class” might be a more fitting description for the oligarchy Rothkopf describes. “Insider” Rothkopf’s estimate of around 6,000 individual oligarchs, whose decisions impact the lives of the remaining eight billion of us, seems feasible.

Musk and Thiel are just two among the 6,000 by virtue of being welcomed into the “superclass” by behind-the-scenes oligarchs who do not feature on the published lists of the world’s wealthiest men and women. Musk and Thiel are made men. We are focusing on them because they are prominent accelerationist technocrat supporters of the Trump/Vance administration.

Elon Musk’s maternal grandfather was Joshua N. Haldeman (1902–1974), who hailed from Pequot, Minnesota. In 1906, when Joshua was four, his parents took the family north and settled in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. In 1936, after 34 years of life on the western plains of the US and Canada, Joshua Haldeman moved to Saskatchewan’s provincial capital, Regina, where he established a successful chiropractic business.

Between 1936 and 1941, Haldeman did more than realign spines. He was also the research director and leader of the Regina branch of an up-and-coming entity known as Technocracy Incorporated, shortened to Technocracy Inc. In 1940, while serving in that post, he was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for violating Defence of Canada regulations, under which Technocracy Inc. was deemed an “illegal organisation.” As a result, Haldeman was denied entry into the US, where he had intended to deliver a speech promoting Technocracy. He was then fined and given a suspended sentence for heading up the controversial Technocracy Inc.

Following his 1941 conviction, Haldeman joined the Canadian Social Credit Party (Socred), which had been formed in 1932 by evangelist William Aberhart. Socred sought to implement the “social credit” economic theory of British engineer and economist C. H. Douglas. Like Socred, Technocracy was based upon the “industrial efficiency” ideas of engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor (Taylorism). It also dovetailed with the “conspicuous consumption” economic theories of Thorstein Veblen.

C. H. Douglas presented his theory of social credit to tackle what he saw as the inequality of opportunity created by the centralised control and hoarding of resources and wealth. He identified the “macro-economic gap” between retail price inflation and wage growth. He suggested filling that gap by creating the “National Credit Office”—which would be independent of state control—to issue “debt-free” credit to consumers. Part of this National Credit would be used to lower retail prices. The remainder would be distributed to all citizens, irrespective of their personal financial situation, as a way of creating consumer demand for goods. Douglas’ suggestion was an early model of Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Joshua Haldeman’s family of seven, which included a daughter, Maye Haldeman, left Canada in 1950 to set up base in Pretoria, South Africa. As entrepreneurs and adventurers, they travelled extensively. By her own account, Maye Haldeman was close to her parents and adopted their entrepreneurial spirit, sense of adventure and work ethic. Unavoidably, she was also familiar with her parents’ political ideas. Maye recalled that, as a child, she and her siblings would do their “monthly bulletins and photocopy newsletters, and then put the stamps on the envelopes.”

Maye Haldeman married Errol Musk in 1970. Their son, Elon, was born in Pretoria a year later. He was an infant when his grandfather died in a plane crash. Nonetheless, as he was growing up, Elon learned about and became intimately familiar with his grandfather’s political philosophy.

Though Musk was evidently close to his mother, he elected to stay with his father in Pretoria when his parents divorced in 1979. After Elon’s relationship with his father soured, he encouraged his mother to claim her Canadian passport, according to Maye. Her doing so enabled Elon to quickly secure his own Canadian passport, emigrate from South Africa—which he did at age 17—and thereby avoid compulsory military service in that country.

Elon’s ultimate goal was to live and work in the US. But before that, he decided to head from Montreal to Waldeck, Saskatchewan, where, upon returning to his roots, he worked as a farm hand on his second cousin’s farm. There, he awaited his mother Maye’s arrival from Pretoria. She was followed by Elon’s two siblings, Kimbal and Tosca, who also wanted to be closer to the Haldeman side of the family in Canada.

Musk studied at Queen’s College in Kingston, Ontario, for two years before acting upon his aim of settling in America. He transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in physics and economics. Subsequently, he interned in Silicon Valley tech companies before abandoning education to pursue his entrepreneurial ambitions.

Fast Forward to Today

In October 2024, Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos posted on Musk’s “X” platform an alluring statement: “The Network State for Mars is being formed before our eyes.” Musk enthusiastically replied, “The Mars Technocracy.” To which Bezos responded, “Count me in.”

As he continues to dream about colonising Mars, Musk has made it abundantly clear which political system he prefers. In 2019, he wrote: “Accelerating Starship development to build the Martian Technocracy.” Note his use of the word “accelerating.” For Musk “accelerating” doesn’t simply mean an increase in velocity.

Musk has long advocated Universal Basic Income. Here’s one instance of his embrace of UBI: At the World Government Summit in 2017, Musk said, “We will have to have some kind of universal basic income.” Another example: In June 2024, speaking with then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the UK-convened first global “AI Safety Summit,” Musk painted a Utopian vision of an artificial intelligence-dominated society and “an age of abundance” before adding, “We won’t have universal basic income, we’ll have universal high income.” In other words, he was suggesting that the masses would have perfect “lives of abundance” enabled by the ultimate AI-controlled distribution of UBI.

Musk desires Technocracy—and a social credit system—just as his grandfather Joshua Haldeman did. This is evident beyond his personal history and his words. Everything Musk does is completely congruent with these dual pursuits. But when we are invited to discuss Technocracy in reference to Mars, we are of course asked to ignore all the evidence that exposes Musk’s and his fellow oligarchs’ attempts to establish a “Technate”—a system of technocratic, totalitarian continental control—here on Earth.

As is the case with many of his oligarch brethren, Musk’s business acumen and his ethics are highly questionable. It appears he has survived and thereafter thrived in business solely because of his network connections, his considerable state backing, and the largess of his investors. As George Carlin wisely observed, “It’s a big club.”

Musk invested more than a quarter-billion dollars to install Trump in the Oval Office. Naturally, he anticipates a return on his investment. In fact, that ROI is a done deal: Musk already makes billions from US taxpayers through a web of government contracts. For tycoons like Musk, money is simply a means to an end: obtaining power. His wealth has positioned him to start seriously implementing his grand vision of Technocracy.

Musk’s dive into Technocracy is underway through the newly established temporary agency in Washington, D.C., he now chairs. Announced last November by Trump, created on his first day in office, and supposedly set to complete its mission by the summer of 2026, the US Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, appears to be a nascent Technocracy.

Venture capitalist Musk and biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy were handpicked to run DOGE with the help of Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick. Vivik has since departed to run for Governor of Ohio. Lutnick was Trump’s choice to become the US Secretary of Commerce and was recently confirmed. His appointment raises many concerns. Not least of them is his link to Satellogic, a strategic partner of Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies. This link reveals Lutnick’s personal investment in the public-private surveillance state that is governed by US and Israeli intelligence agencies.

Yet Lutnick has an even more significant conflict of interest. He is steering Cantor Fitzgerald to back Tether (USDT), a stablecoin that is increasingly purchasing US Treasurys. As we move toward the era of digital currencies, the US government project to save its debt-laden dollar and its fragile economy is closely tied to stablecoins. Thus, as Secretary of Commerce, Lutnick will be in a position to guide the development of markets toward the new US digital economy. We’ll expand on this angle in Part 2.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that “the Doge” was the formal title of the chief administrator (magistrate) of the mercantile Venetian Republic. As we shall also discuss in Part 2, there are many reasons to suspect that today’s DOGE acronym is not a mere coincidence.

The departure of Ramaswamy and Lutnick from the DOGE project appears to leave Musk as its sole “CEO.” A corporate monarchy, led by a CEO “king,” (TechnoKing) is in keeping with the theories underpinning the Dark Enlightenment.

The stated purpose of the DOGE is to restructure the federal government to reduce expenditures and maximise efficiency. That goal is in keeping with Taylorism, a foundation of Technocracy.

One of the leading neoreactionaries (we’ll explain this term shortly), Curtis Yarvin, coined the catchy acronym RAGE. It stands for Retire All Government Employees. The parallels between the stated ambitions of the DOGE and the intention of Yarvin’s RAGE are marked.

Apparently, the DOGE will not be an official executive department but will instead operate as a Federal Presidential Advisory Committee, supposedly outside of government. But make no mistake: The DOGE will be inextricably tied to the political process. Its employees will be housed in the former offices of its predecessor, the United States Digital Service. And its helmsman, Musk, will reportedly have a personal office in the West Wing of the White House.

The efficiency ideas of certain nominated experts, starting with Musk, will be given political clout via a new “DOGE” subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This subpanel is chaired by controversial congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)—often referred to as MTG. On the surface, it may look like an oversight subcommittee with authority over the science, engineering, and technology “experts,” but in practice the “experts” will be effectively controlling the related political policy decisions. This concept of policy designed by technical “experts” is central to Technocracy.

J.P. Morgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon is among those who have welcomed the DOGE plan. Certainly, the proposal to radically reduce or even eradicate US government’s financial regulators appeals to bankers like Dimon. The Trump administration is seeking to seize and centralise control of financial regulators such as the Security and Exchange Commssion (SEC) and the antitrust regulator the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Consequently, the banks are anticipating a much lighter regulatory touch. Speaking at Davos, J.P. Morgan asset wealth fund manager Mary Erdoes—tipped to succeed Dimon as CEO—said the moves had freed US bankers’ “animal spirits” and set investment banks in “go-mode.”

Given that Elon Musk was neither elected by Americans nor authorized by their representatives in Congress, the DOGE represents a formal shift in political power from the public to the private sector. It is fundamentally a private sector-dominated think tank openly empowered to “restructure federal agencies.” If the DOGE proceeds as suggested, it is clear that, as we pointed out above, elected US representatives—MTG among them—and US senators will not have the upper hand. Indeed, we might question if they are even capable of grasping the ulterior motives of those driving the DOGE concept.

Also, given that Musk and other DOGE supporters—Bezos, for example—have long profited from huge government contracts, and given that the likes of Dimon will doubtlessly be asked to “advise” the DOGE, we see a massive conflict of interest at the heart of the DOGE project. That conflict, like everything else about the DOGE, is aligned with Technocracy, for it affords pecking-order privileges to the very technocrats who seek to control a Technate.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Press for Truth

The post This Is State-Sanctioned Theft! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Warren White.

The post NATO appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

President Trump announced on January 19 his administration would release the JFK assassination records. The next day Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the National Archives for these records. AG Pam Bondi has claimed she is going to release the records but where are they? The National Archives has not responded to the FOIA request, so Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the agency on February 27. 

See here.

The post Judicial Watch Sues National Archives for JFK Assassination Records appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

The post It’s All Starting To Make Sense… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

See here.

The post Biden’s “Win” In Syria appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  Gail Appel.

See here.

The post 62,000 Christians Slaughtered in Nigeria to the Sound of Silence appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

The translation of Islam is “ submission”. Really.

See here.

The post Another beautiful day in Italy appeared first on LewRockwell.