Aggregatore di feed

When I first applied for a driver’s license, I was asked if I wanted to designate myself as an organ donor. Given my learned distrust of societal institutions (e.g., medicine) and a few concerning stories I’d come across, I opted to not be an organ donor. However, I also felt quite conflicted about doing so, particularly since I strongly believe in following the golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated) and knew that if I needed a transplant I would be desperate for the appropriate donor to be willing to give the gift of life to me.

Since that time (when information challenging the mainstream narrative was quite difficult to find), I’ve come across much more information on the topic which paints a rather disturbing but also amazing profoundly paradigm shifting perspective on the topic (e.g., this article will detail the tangible spiritual consequences of receiving an unethically harvested organ).

However, due to my inherent conflict over this topic (e.g., many people need organs so I don’t want to discourage donations—particularly since organ shortages cause even more unethical steps to be taken to procure organs), I focused on other topics and only started this article in July. To my great surprise, a few weeks later, RFK Jr. did something I never anticipated and formally announced that there were widespread failures of the ethical safeguards in our organ donation system, after which, the Overton window was blown open and others (e.g., the head of the Independent Medical Alliance) began discussing the grim reality organs were being taken from still living people.

The Value of Organs

I have long observed that as long as enough money is on the line, there always will be a portion of people who are willing to do horrific and unimaginable things (e.g., slaughter people in overseas wars for profit). As such, I always consider the actual incentives at work when trying to appraise the reality of worrisome situations I come across.

One of the great accomplishments of the medical system was it creating the mythology it could conquer death, after which it gradually pivoted to being viewed as essential for remaining alive, and then to something which was necessary to continuously consume for “health”—all of which allowed it become incredibly profitable (and consume an ever increasing share of America’s GDP—currently totaling over 17.6% of all money spent in the United States).

Note: Medical Nemesis was an insightful 1976 book which predicted much of what followed. In Chapter 5 (pages 64–77—which can be read here), Ivan Illich highlights how the cultural conception of death evolved from an intimate, lifelong companion we had no separation from to a feared, medicalized entity to be conquered. He traced this shift through six historical stages, from the Renaissance ‘Danse Macabre’ to modern death under intensive care, where death is defined by the cessation of brain waves.

Illich argued that this medicalization, driven by the medical profession’s growing control, stripped individuals of autonomy, turned death into a commodity, and reinforced social control through compulsory care. This Western death image, exported globally, then supplanted traditional practices, contributing to societal dysfunction by alienating people from their own mortality. I agree with this, but feel the impacts of this were far more profound than even Illich hinted at.

In tandem with this, medicine began performing medical “miracles” such as being able to raise the dead (via cardiac resuscitation) and transplant organs. Opening the previously insurmountable boundaries between life and death, in turn, earned the discipline immense credit in the eyes of the public, and hence allowed it to justify being paid obscene amounts for its services (whereas in the past, doctors were paid very little and frequently only if they were able to get others better).
Note: as I will discuss in this article, crossing that boundary also called into question the materialistic (non-spiritual) paradigm modern science rests upon.

Because of this, coupled with how limited viable donor organs are, transplants rapidly became an incredibly valuable commodity (e.g., the cost of a transplant ranges from $446,800 to $1,918,700 depending on the organ—with the heart being the most expensive). As such, given how desperate many are for the organs, and how much money is at stake, it felt reasonable to assume some degree of illegal organ harvesting would occur given that people are routinely killed in other contexts for profit (e.g., in overseas wars, with a pharmaceutical company pushing lucrative drug they know can kill, or the brutal cartel violence done to establish territory).

Over the years, I then found various pieces of evidence suggesting this was happening, the worst of which I was unsure if they indeed transpired. As this is disturbing, you may want to skip the rest of this section. These included:

•Individuals being tricked into selling a kidney (e.g., in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4—approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden and in 2023, a wealthy Nigerian politician being convicted for trying to trick someone into donating a kidney for a transplant at an English hospital).

•A 2009 and 2014 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments and the possibility of surviving with one kidney (though this greatly reduces your vitality). Approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China and Africa), receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care. To quote the 2009 article:

Diflo became an outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that, rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis patients had their transplants done in China. There they could purchase the kidneys of executed prisoners. In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell organs to foreign buyers in order to contribute to the family’s income, or to provide for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable data are almost impossible to come by.

Note: these reports also highlighted that these surgeries operate on the periphery of the medical system and involve complicit medical professionals who typically claim ignorance of its illegality (e.g., a good case was made a few US hospitals like Cedars Sinai were complicit in the trade).

• A 2004 court case where a South African hospital pled guilty to illegally transplanting kidneys from poorer recipients (who received $6,000–$20,000) to wealthy recipients (who paid up to $120,000).1,2

• Many reports of organ harvesting by the Chinese government against specific political prisoners.1,2,3,4,5,6 This evidence is quite compelling, particularly since until 2006, China admitted organs were sourced from death row prisoners (with data suggesting the practice has not stopped).
Note: harvesting organs from death row prisoners represents one of the most reliable ways to get healthy organs immediately at the time of death.

• Over the years, I’ve read allegations Israel illegally harvested organs from murdered Palestinians.1,2,3 I have never known what to make of these, as while some of the evidence appears compelling, neither the sources nor the evidence are definitive (often coming from those politically opposed to Israel), and logistically, collecting organs from someone who was just murdered on the battlefield before the organ expires is very difficult (and would require a specialized harvesting team to be there—something I’ve never seen reported). However, it has been officially admitted longer lasting tissues (e.g., corneas) were harvested without consent from Israelis and Palestinians bodies until the practice was banned in the 1990s.
Note: I’ve also read reports of organ harvesting occurring in Middle East conflict zones, by ISIS and in the Kosovo conflict, and with drug cartels.

Given all of this, I am unsure of the extent of “unethical” organ harvesting, but I am sure it happens (including in the most horrific manner we can imagine) and that there are likely far more cases of which have been successfully swept under the rug. Simultaneously, I strongly suspect the state sanctioned form has gradually decreased as more awareness was brought to the problem (however this may be counterbalanced by the blackmarket as the demand for organs continues to increase).

Note: many other valuable tissues (e.g., tendons and corneas) can be harvested from dead bodies. Significant controversy also exists with the ethics of how these are collected (e.g., the respect given to the bodies or how profit focused that industry is). As there is less oversight with these transplants, a significant amount of questionable conduct is rarely reported, but as the primary ethical concerns are not applicable (e.g., harvesting from a non-consenting living donor), this topic will not be discussed in this article.

Locked-In Syndrome

Since so many different parts of the brain control different facets of our being, individuals who are still conscious can sometimes completely lose control of their bodies or the ability to community with the outside world (termed Locked-in syndrome).

In one famous case, Martin, a 12-year old who fell ill with meningitis entering a vegetative state, was sent home with his parents to await his death, but instead remained alive and was brought by his father to a special care center at 5 am each day. When he turned 16, he began regaining consciousness, by 19 became fully aware of everything around him, then gradually regained some control of his eyes, and at 26 (long after he’d become a background object), a caregiver realized he was showing signs of awareness, at which point he was tested, giving a communication computer, and gradually regained his functionality (eventually getting married).

Note: two aspects I never forgot from his memoir were the years he spent being haunted by his exasperated mother (without thinking) once saying “I hope you die” and him sharing “I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney” as the care center he spent years at, assuming he was vegetative, had him watch Barney the Dinosaur re-runs each day.

Since our ability to perceive and interact with the world depends upon many different regions of the brain, those capacities also fade as one is nearing death. However, rather than being a random process, certain functions are lost before others. In turn, it’s frequently observed within the palliative medical field (where support is offered to dying individuals) that touch and hearing are the last two senses to disappear (e.g., this study showed hearing is preserved at the end of life). As such, I often think of Martin’s story (with people who are assumed to be unaware of their environment) and periodically tell grieving families there is a possibility their “brain dead” (or soon to die) loved one can either hear their voice or feel their touch as this often provides a significant degree of closure for them (and every now and then I hear a story suggesting that final communication was perceived).

Note: a strong case can be made that modern medicine functions as the state religion of our society (with many of its rituals and behaviors having strong parallels to what was seen in other religions such as doctors’ white coats being equivalent to a priest’s robes or vaccines being its holy water you are baptized in). Cardiac resuscitation (“raising the dead”) likewise is a powerful miracle which many have argued helped cement our modern faith in medicine. What’s less recognized (as it challenges science’s spirit-denying dogma that insists consciousness resides solely within the brain) is that many resuscitated individuals have had replicable “near death experiences” where they were aware of their surroundings (often from outside their body) when their brain was “dead.” This is turn suggests that other “less recognized” senses may also persist at the time of brain death.

In parallel, while rare, every now and then cases occur when “dead” people come back to life (e.g., a Mississippi man who’d been in a body bag for a while woke up right before being embalmed—and numerous other cases exist of someone declared dead by multiple physicians later waking up1,2,3).

The Specificity of Brain Death

Sensitivity designates being able to spot something that is there while specificity designates not erroneously spotting something which wasn’t actually there (a false positive). In most cases, it is impossible to have perfect sensitivity and specificity, as once you increase one, you inevitably decrease the other (e.g., tough on crime approaches reduce crime but also inevitably result in innocent people being arrested and convicted).

This concept is typically looked at with medical diagnoses (e.g., not missing a cancer that is there but also not erroneously diagnosing a cancer and putting someone through a harmful and unnecessary cancer protocol—which for example is a common issue with routine screening mammograms), but also applies to many other fields to. In turn, I believe many issues in society boil down to finding the best possible balance between the two, but frequently, issues become polarized and irreconcilable as neither side is willing to consider the other (sensitivity or specificity) or alternately, only one side is publicly presented and we never hear about the other (e.g., we are constantly told about the dangers of not vaccinating and catching diseases but rarely if ever about the far more frequent injuries that result from vaccination).

Since organs rapidly lose their viability once someone dies, the only consistent way to ethically obtain them is from someone who has already “died” but whose body is still keeping the organs alive—in other words, from someone who is brain dead.

Given that the potential exists for individuals who are brain dead to still be alive (e.g., consider the examples I just provided) and how much money is on the line for transplants, this naturally led me to wonder if the specificity of that diagnosis might have been lowered to meet the needed quotas.

For example, The New York Times published an essay two weeks ago advocating for increasing the sensitivity for detecting brain death which many understandably found quite disturbing. To quote it:

Donor Organs Are Too Rare. We Need a New Definition of Death.

A person may serve as an organ donor only after being declared dead…Brain death is rare, though.

The need for donor organs is urgent. An estimated 15 people die in this country every day waiting for a transplant.

New technologies can help. But the best solution, we believe, is legal: We need to broaden the definition of death.

Fortunately, there is a relatively new method that can improve the efficacy of donation after circulatory death. In this procedure, which is called normothermic regional perfusion, doctors take an irreversibly comatose donor off life support long enough to determine that the heart has stopped beating permanently — but then the donor is placed on a machine that circulates oxygen-rich blood through the body to preserve organ function. Donor organs obtained through this procedure, which is used widely in Europe and increasingly in the United States, tend to be much healthier.

But by artificially circulating blood and oxygen, the procedure can reanimate a lifeless heart. Some doctors and ethicists find the procedure objectionable because, in reversing the stoppage of the heart, it seems to nullify the reason the donor was declared dead in the first place. Is the donor no longer dead, they wonder?

Proponents of the procedure reply that the resumption of the heartbeat should not be considered resuscitation; the donor still has no independent functioning, nor is there any hope of it. They say that it is not the donor but rather regions of the body that have been revived.

How to resolve this debate? The solution, we believe, is to broaden the definition of brain death to include irreversibly comatose patients on life support. Using this definition, these patients would be legally dead regardless of whether a machine restored the beating of their heart.

So long as the patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed without delay. The ethical debate about normothermic regional perfusion would be moot. And we would have more organs available for transplantation.

Apart from increased organ availability, there is also a philosophical reason for wanting to broaden the definition of brain death. The brain functions that matter most to life are those such as consciousness, memory, intention and desire. Once those higher brain functions are irreversibly gone, is it not fair to say that a person (as opposed to a body) has ceased to exist?

In 1968, a committee of doctors and ethicists at Harvard came up with a definition of brain death — the same basic definition most states use today. In its initial report the committee noted that “there is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.”

This frank assessment was edited out of the final report because of a reviewer’s objection. But it is one that should guide death and organ policy today.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Unseen Cost of Organ Transplants: Ethical Issues and Spiritual Implications appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you listen long enough, people will eventually tell you exactly what they truly believe. Unfortunately, we have just learned what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky truly believes about the war with Russia, and it is not good news at all. Apparently Zelensky is convinced that there will not be a permanent state of peace until all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea belong to his government. Needless to say, the Russians will never hand all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea over to Ukraine willingly, and so they will need to be taken by force. Since the Ukrainians cannot do this alone, they will be seeking to enlist the help of others, and that is what should deeply alarm all of us.

The mainstream media’s fawning coverage of Zelensky’s Independence Day speech makes him sounds like some sort of a great peacemaker.  Here is just one example…

President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine would continue to fight for its freedom “while its calls for peace are not heard,” in a defiant address to the nation on its independence day.

“We need a just peace, a peace where our future will be decided only by us,” he said, adding that Ukraine was “not a victim, it is a fighter”.

He continued: “Ukraine has not yet won, but it has certainly not lost.”

That makes him sound so incredibly reasonable.

But the mainstream media did not report on any of the troubling parts of Zelensky’s speech.

I went and found a transcript of the speech, and it reveals Zelensky’s real goals…

And now, in a full-scale war for independence, it is here, on Maidan, that one can find such important symbols. Symbols of how we fight, what we fight for, and how we are overcoming this war.

These symbols are all around us. In this Independence Monument. Inside, it has a reinforced concrete frame and can literally withstand a hurricane. In the same way, our Ukraine has withstood the great calamity that Russia brought to our land. In this “Zero Kilometer” point. It is the starting point where distances to Ukrainian cities are written: to our Donetsk, our Luhansk, our Crimea. Today, these markers have a completely different meaning. They are no longer just about kilometers. They remind us that all of this is Ukraine. And there are our people, and no distance between us can change that, and no temporary occupation can change that. One day, the distance between Ukrainians will disappear, and we will be together again as one family, as one country. It is only a matter of time. And Ukraine believes it can achieve this — achieve peace, peace across all its land. Ukraine is capable of it.

This is what started the war in the first place.

Western leaders gave Zelensky a green light to break the Minsk agreements, and so he gathered a 70,000 soldier invasion force along the borders of the DPR and the LPR.  The Ukrainians were shelling the living daylights out of the most heavily populated cities in the DPR and the LPR and were preparing to move in when the Russians intervened.

Zelensky’s obsession with conquering Donetsk and Luhansk precipitated this entire crisis, and now 1.7 million Ukrainians are dead.

But instead of being willing to accept the compromise deal that the Russians are now offering, in his speech Zelensky defiantly proclaimed that Ukraine will never accept any “compromise” that comes from the Russians…

This is Ukraine now. And this Ukraine will never again in history be forced into the shame that the “Russians” call a “compromise.”

Yes, Zelensky is calling for a temporary ceasefire along the current line of contact, because Ukraine has been steadily losing more territory.

But in Zelensky’s mind the purpose of such a ceasefire would be to regroup and rearm in preparation for taking all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea.

That is why Ukraine’s plan is to bring as many western troops into Ukraine once a temporary ceasefire has been established.

Once they are there, it will be far easier to drag western nations into the war.

The Ukrainians aren’t stupid.  They have already lost 1.7 million soldiers and they know that the only way that they can militarily defeat Russia is with NATO’s help.

And so that is why Ukraine has been attempting to provoke Russia into doing something really dramatic over and over again.  The goal is to get the Russians to escalate matters so much that NATO will feel forced to come riding to Ukraine’s aid.

For instance, the Ukrainians just attacked a nuclear power plant deep inside Russian territory…

A fire has been put out at a nuclear power plant in Russia’s western Kursk region and air defences have shot down a Ukrainian drone, Russian officials have said.

The drone detonated when it fell and damaged a transformer, but radiation levels were normal and there were no casualties, a post from the plant’s account on messaging app Telegram said.

The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly called on both Russia and Ukraine to show maximum restraint around nuclear facilities in the war.

Why would the Ukrainians do such a thing?

The answer is obvious.

They want the Russians to strike back so hard that western leaders will finally feel compelled to join the conflict.

At one point the stunts that the Ukrainians have been pulling almost worked.  There were plans to strike decision making centers in Kyiv with Oreshnik missiles, but Russian President Vladimir Putin wisely vetoed those plans…

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Friday told reporters in an anecdote given to a press conference that Russian authorities had plans to directly attack Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office in Kiev, but that President Putin rejected the proposed action.

What’s more, Lukashenko said, is that it would have happened with the new Oreshnik missiles, which are medium-range hypersonics that Russian officials have touted as having the same destructive power as a low-yield nuclear strike.

But it is just a matter of time before the Ukrainians successfully push the Russians too far.

When that time arrives, we could find ourselves directly fighting a nation that has more nukes than we do…

Moscow continues to hold nearly 4,400 nuclear warheads, over 1,500 of which are “strategically deployed” while the U.S. possesses more than 3,700 warheads in its stockpiles with 1,400 deployed, according to the Arms Control Association.

And as I have extensively documented, Russian missiles are far superior to what we possess, and Russian anti-missile systems are far superior to what we possess as well.

We must not get into an apocalyptic conflict with the Russians.

But if the Ukrainians get their way, that is precisely what is going to happen.

Meanwhile, it appears that there will be no peace in the Middle East either.

On Sunday, the IDF conducted an enormous bombing campaign in the capital of Yemen…

Israel bombed Houthi rebel targets in Yemen’s capital on Sunday, including a military site near the presidential palace.

The attacks by the IDF, which also included strikes on the Asar and Hizaz power plants, came after the Houthis fired a “multi-headed” warhead at Israel for the first time on Friday.

The use of the munition presents a new challenge for the Israeli defence system, which up until now has successfully repelled most of the Houthis’ attacks.

Sunday’s attacks sent huge fireballs into the sky over Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, as the IDF said it had struck a “significant electricity supply facility for military activities” for the Houthis.

And it is being reported that a “defining battle” between Israeli troops and Hamas is imminent…

On Saturday, Israeli tanks and troops began maneuvering ever closer to Gaza City’s outskirts in preparation for a full-scale offensive. Eyewitness accounts reported intensified shelling as Israel is moving toward what could be the defining battle of its war against Hamas terrorists: the capture of Gaza City.

Israel’s security cabinet approved the operation, known as Gideon’s Chariots B, and has deployed up to five IDF divisions toward the city’s outskirts—a highly significant mobilization. Thousands of reservists—some 60,000—have been called up.

John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Madison Policy Forum and executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, told Fox News Digital the scale of this operation is unprecedented. “This will be a bigger challenge than anything the IDF has faced, arguably ever. It is the densest location in Gaza, the heart of Hamas’s stronghold. And you don’t really know what the tunnels are until you get into them.”

If Hamas would have just released all of the hostages, so much bloodshed could have been avoided.

But that never was going to happen, was it?

Unfortunately, just about everyone seems to have come down with a really bad case of “war fever”.

Leaders all over the planet want to fight, and so that is what they will get.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post Has He Gone Completely Insane? Zelensky Announces That There Is Not Going To Be Peace appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recently, I looked up the official population numbers for America 2.0. Even with birth rates plummeting at warp speed, some 57.8 percent of the populace remains White. I was actually astonished at this figure. One gets the distinct impression that Whites are already a minority, a situation gleefully forecast and anticipated by the elite.

The picture above reveals a reality that once existed, albeit not to such an idealized extent, not that long ago in this country. White people were large and in charge. America was a Patriarchy, run by White men. Whites were visible everywhere, from the guy who pumped your gas (there was no “self serve” in that full service era) to the clerk at any retail store to the president of every company. Every job paid a living wage, and nearly every job was done by a White person. Over 89 percent of Americans were White in 1960. Every year, the White percentage drops, and the nonwhite percentage rises. It’s about the most obvious trend one could imagine. But still, despite the anti-White propaganda and the phenomenon of self-hating Whites, we remain a large majority of the population. So what do we do other than vacation?

Now, in my own very quiet suburban neighborhood, things often resemble the 1950s. It’s overwhelmingly White, and not a single person seems compelled to ever “keep it real.” But they are mostly older Whites, many of whom bought these houses new in the late 1970s. Back when Whites were still starting families. Those children have long grown, leaving a lot of gray haired retirees wandering around their gardens, or anxiously awaiting the arrival of the mail (which is always delivered by a “person of color”). You’ll see lonely copies of the Washington Post at the end of their driveways. Only old people still read the newspaper. But some of them are still young enough to be in the workforce. That’s the question that intrigues me. Who do they work for? They must be doing pretty well financially, to live in this neighborhood. Do they all work from home? Are they all “consultants” who don’t get to experience a commute?

Recently, I’ve spent far more time than I’d like, visiting three different loved ones in hospitals, rehab centers, and nursing homes. Walking through any of them is a surreal experience. Virtually the entire staffs at all these places is nonwhite, consisting largely of African immigrants. Not a single attractive young White nurse, the kind that filled the hospital I worked in back in the mid-1970s. Did White girls just stop becoming nurses? It was a very prestigious job, and paid extremely well. Even the doctors are almost all nonwhite. No more brusque White guys in white coats, with stethoscopes hanging around their necks. Now it’s nonwhite guys who struggle to speak English. And you see less of them. Several times, we didn’t see a single doctor while spending six hours or more at one of these dark, depressing facilities. And if you thought it was hard getting a hot White nurse to come help you, try ringing for a nonwhite nurse.

Well, I do live in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, so I’ve always known lots of government workers. Beltway bandits. So, maybe that’s where all the White people work now? Try again. The DMV? Don’t make me laugh. When I had to represent the interests of my brother in person at a local Social Security office, there wasn’t a White employee in sight. I haven’t had to actually visit any other government agencies lately, but I’ve telephoned a bunch of them. And again, the phones are always answered by a rude, obviously Black woman. Yeah, I know it’s “racist” to suggest that one can determine the race of a person by their usage of crude Ebonics. I have had many family members working for the government, and some still do. But they’re all approaching retirement age. Odds are they will be replaced by a member of the 42.2 percent of the population that isn’t White. The math just doesn’t add up, unless we’re going full Common Core. The Whites have to work somewhere.

I go to the grocery store on the rare occasions my Hall of Fame wife shopper isn’t available. I see a lot of diversity in the staffs. But oddly, the shoppers are always almost all White . So what employers are providing them with the wherewithal to afford all the wildly overpriced items in the aisles? But you’ll at least see a few Whites, usually oldsters, still working at grocery stores. Other retail stores? Forget it. You can still be waited on by White servers at the restaurants I go to, but the staffs at all these places are becoming increasingly “diverse.” When I have to go the local AT&T store, to get my latest upgrade or ask inanely for some advice on how to use some feature on my “smart” phone, the person assisting me is always nonwhite. And someone who is a caricature of the character Apu on The Simpsons is going to be behind the counter at every convenience store. I understand the show actually eliminated poor Apu, as he was considered stereotypical. But undeniably a very accurate stereotype.

I have never been waited on by a White teller at my regular bank. Ever. How about construction? I recall lots of strapping young White guys who worked construction during the summer, because it paid very well and helped them stay in shape. But that was the 1970s, in a galaxy far, far away from here. As I drive around my area, I am constantly dealing with lane closures, accompanied by signs warning drivers that there is “Road Work Ahead.” When you see any evidence of this road work, it consists of nonwhites in yellow jackets, holding signs that say “slow” or “stop.” Not a strapping White guy in sight. I have only faint hopes of ever seeing one of these “diverse” crews actually performing any “road work.” I can see that the roads continue to be cracked and full of pot holes. Perhaps their real assignment is to make sure the roads don’t turn “racist.” That was, after all, one of our former beloved president Joe Biden’s primary concerns. At any rate, they’re being paid for something.

How about good old telemarketing? The black hole where people who couldn’t find work used to go. Nope, not there either. Those who are bothering you to buy something you don’t want or need will now almost always be someone with a thick Indian accent, comically given an American name like “Kyle” to make you think they’re from this country. And when you call for say, cable service, you’ll almost always get these same Indians with fake English names, and you’ll struggle to understand them. I think that’s the point, to have government agencies choose rude Black women to “help” you, and for companies to select outsourced foreign visa workers to “help” customers with their cable, phone, and other warranty questions. You’d think that a company would want someone who represents them on the phone to be exemplary in every way. Or at least somewhat like the White women who used to be receptionists. Receptionists have gone the way of the dodo.

Maybe it’s just my area. I don’t have any reason to go to CIA or FBI or Homeland Security headquarters, for instance, so it’s possible those agencies are stacked with White employees. But if one judges by local media, all across this country, again one would think that Whites are a rarely seen, tiny minority. Like Jews, for instance. Who, of course, are often visible and even more often found behind the scenes in positions of real power. I don’t watch the news much at all, but whenever I happen to pass by the television when my wife is checking the weather or something, or I’m trapped in an office or business where the television is on some news channel, I’m struck by the dearth of Whites onscreen, especially White males. Even the wannabe actresses that used to dominate the screen at every network, are becoming scarce. When a hot girl can’t become a Victoria’s Secret model any longer, because they’re pushing “Plus” size acceptance, what are they supposed to do? Well, there’s always Only Fans.

Read the Whole Article

The post Where Do All the White People Work? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recent data reveal a startling decline in childhood vaccination rates, with kindergarten coverage now dropping to about 92 %, far below the 95 % threshold needed for herd immunity.

Exemptions have increased to 3.6% nationwide, and more than half the states experienced declines in coverage for MMR, DTaP, polio, and varicella for the 2024-25 school year. Meanwhile, measles cases have reached a 33-year high, along with a disturbing rise in whooping cough cases, more than doubling in 2025 compared to the previous year.

Why are parents becoming more skeptical of routine childhood vaccinations?

The core reason is trust, with trust eroding so deeply that it may become permanent.

That erosion directly results from government actions, missteps, and malevolence during the COVID era. Health authorities at the local, state, and national levels imposed mandates and restrictions on a whim, based on political rather than medical science. They broadcast a cascade of contradictory messages that shattered the public’s faith in health institutions. Let’s review some of these failures.

First, masks, mandates, and COVID origins. These were the initial cracks in the foundational credibility of medical institutions.

The sudden implementation of lockdowns, the flip-flopping on mask effectiveness during the pandemic, and the insistence on mandates created an environment where government directives felt coercive and punitive rather than consultative and altruistic.

Americans who were told that lockdowns were only temporary (remember “15 days to slow the spread”) and then saw those same lockdowns extended multiple times felt proud to comply.

However, much of the public grew increasingly uneasy as scientific explanations kept changing week after week. That growing unease planted doubt, even among those who initially followed orders, which spread beyond just the immediate COVID pandemic.

Liquor stores and strip clubs could stay open, but churches and schools could not. Big Box stores stayed open while small businesses closed. Going into a building without a mask was a super spreader event, while marching with thousands of unmasked protesters was considered safe.

Second, confusion about COVID vaccines with declining confidence in government proclamations. Starting with the jabs. Despite initial hopes, vaccine messaging remained unclear, including claims about efficacy, mandates, and the need for boosters upon boosters.

We were told that if we took the experimental gene therapy (vaccine), we would neither catch nor spread COVID. President Biden promised (lied), “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Yet, we saw our fully vaccinated friends and family repeatedly get COVID.

A Cleveland Clinic study confirmed that more vaccine doses were linked to a higher rate of COVID infection.

Parents watched as health agencies revised their safety statements. Talk of long-term adverse effects, including myocarditis, blood clots, and aggressive cancers, was initially dismissed, only to be quietly investigated and confirmed.

Meanwhile, the VAERS system was misused in public forums to tally raw adverse event reports without proper context, fueling fears instead of easing them. This fostered an environment of understandable parental hesitation that went beyond COVID shots to include routine childhood immunizations.

Third was the misinformation feedback loop and the government’s woefully inadequate response.

While many blame social media disinformation, it’s important to see that misinformation thrived where institutional trust had fallen. Nature abhors a vacuum. Health authority statements, echoed by a pharmaceutical-supported corporate media, created the gap that social media and independent journalists stepped into.

Social media’s echo chambers amplified anti-vaccine stories. Many tales and conspiracy theories, some used as clickbait and others proven true, eroded trust in the “official narrative”.

Physicians and scientists questioning the new situational science were threatened with losing their jobs or licenses, just as I was in the early COVID days.

Yet the government’s approach remained reactive, debunking rumors instead of building trust, and repeating talking points rather than acknowledging uncertainty. In many communities, especially rural or lower-income areas, access to trusted local medical voices was already limited, and pandemic-era messaging only widened that gap.

Read the Whole Article

The post COVID Government Misinformation and Childhood Vaccination Rates appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday, New York Times podcaster, Ezra Klein, produced the most mendacious piece of Times reporting since Judith Miller persistently lied about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Gates made the presentation around the same time that Anthony Fauci and a couple of his colleagues at the NIH published an academic paper (not reported by the New York Times) titled Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses in which they made the following true assertion:

Non-systemic respiratory viruses such as influenza viruses, SARS- CoV-2, and RSV tend to have significantly shorter incubation peri- ods and rapid courses of viral replication. They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue . . . and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others. . . . Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.

Fauci et al. published this paper in January 2023, but the reality they present had long been understood by serious immunologists.

Long before I read Fauci’s paper, the distinguished Australian immunologist, Robert Clancy (emeritus professor of immunology, University of Newcastle) explained this reality to me over dinner one evening in Arlington, Texas.

In other words, the entire mRNA COVID-19 vaccine program was a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the entire human race.

I hereby call upon Ezra Klein, David Wallace-Wells, and Rachael Bedard to STOP LYING to their audiences. Lying is a terrible habit that warps, distorts, and obscures reality. It is especially dreadful and unbecoming of people who work for influential mass media outlets like the New York Times.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Focal Points newsletter. Needless to say, you will not find this kind of investigative scholarship and reporting in the mainstream media, and it requires a great deal of time an effort.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Ezra Klein (NY Times) Keeps Lying About mRNA Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.

The saga of American slavery has more holes in it than the Zionist saga of the Holocaust.  

Recently President Trump wondered about the woke Smithsonian Institute’s fixation on slavery as if it was the principal problem the world faces today.  The liberal media had a hissy fit.  CNN rushed to do a program on slavery, the woke rectification for which is multiculturalism and the replacement of the white racist population by people of color. This is the political agenda of the Democrat Party. To watch white people so determined to achieve their own destruction by voting Democrat is amazing.

The response made by those critical of CNN’s attack on white Americans was that slavery was a matter of the distant past, and we made amends for our responsibility in a civil war.

What nonsense.  No American ever had any responsibility for slavery.  The black King of Dahomey did.

Here are the undeniable, indisputable, basic facts:

Over the course of history far more white people have been slaves than blacks.  Some of these white slaves were held by Romans and other conquerors in ancient times.  Most were held by people of color who raided Europe’s Mediterranean coast for slaves.  Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the US (1801-1809) had to send the US Navy and Marines to “the shores of Tripoli” to stop the North Africans from capturing American ships and enslaving their passengers and crews.

In the New World (Caribbean Islands, North and South America) European colonists found abundant resources but no labor force. British and European sea captains saw a business opportunity in purchasing slaves from the black King of Dahomey and selling them to the colonists as a labor force.  The black King of Dahomey conducted annual slave wars against other blacks and sold the surplus to Arabs and to European sea captains. 

No white colonist in what later became the United States ever enslaved a black person.  They purchased blacks already enslaved by the black King of Dahomey.

When the United States came into existence in the late 18th century, slavery was an inherited institution.  Slavery existed as the labor force for large agricultural plantations, the agri-businesses of  the time.  The plantations using slave labor did not enslave the slaves. They purchased already enslaved labor as no work force was available.

In the United States slavery was doomed as the frontier closed.  Slavery had a long life because white immigrants who entered America could avoid becoming agricultural labor by moving west and occupying land to which the native Americans had use rights but not ownership rights as understood in Western law. Thus the native inhabitants could be dispossessed. 

As the constant stream of immigrant-invaders, such as the US and Europe are experiencing today, continued, the Indian lands were settled by the immigrant-invaders and the frontier closed by 1890.  Slavery could not have existed beyond that date and, in fact, could not have lasted that long. Slavery was costly compared to the wages of free labor.

Slavery was an expensive labor force.  In 19th century America a male field hand cost $1,500.  If a slave had blacksmith or carpenter skills, he cost $2,000.  The price of a slave was three to four times the annual income of a skilled white man such as a blacksmith. Moreover, a slave, if he was to be productive, needed sufficient food, housing, and medical care.  Moreover, he required respect and appreciation,

Many of the slaves were warriors captured in the black King of  Dahomey’s slave wars. They were experienced fighters and had to be treated with respect.  For a white plantation owner to be surrounded by a large number of black men and for him to expect them to work required his respect and proper treatment of his labor force in which he had a large investment.   Propaganda such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin was northern war propaganda against the South. A few issues back, the City Journal posed the question of who was in charge of a rice or sugar plantation in the Caribbean when the one white owner, the only white on the premises, had a work force of 50 black men. The idea that it was customary to whip black warriors and to rape their wives is farfetched.

We certainly know that Uncle Tom’s Cabin is nothing but propaganda.  How do we know?  Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had zero response.  Falsely portrayed by dishonest and corrupt historians as “the freeing of the slaves,” Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” was a war measure that Lincoln hoped would produce a slave rebellion, thus draining Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia of troops who would rush home to defend their women and children left at the mercy of the slaves.  No such threat materialized to the women and children, and no Southern troops left the lines.  The enslaved blacks were protective of the otherwise unprotected white women and children and did not revolt.  There was no racist hate on a Southern plantation. Many of the plantation overseers were black slaves.

 There is no such thing as the American Civil War.  A civil war is when two groups fight for control of the government.  The Southern states had no interest in the government in Washington.  The Southern states withdrew from the US and formed the Confederate States of America.  The war resulted from Lincoln invading an independent country with the intention of exploiting it economically with the Morrill Tariff.

Why did Lincoln start a war by invading an independent country?  The answer is that Lincoln was determined that the Southern states, an agricultural society, would pay for northern industrialization by paying the Morrill Tariff that would keep out British goods and leave the protected market to Northern manufactures at the expense of the South’s pocketbook.

Both sides understood that the issue was the tariff, not slavery. The Southern states wanted to secede on Constitutional grounds so that Lincoln would not have a Constitutional case for declaring the Southern states to be in rebellion and use force.  Under the US Constitution slavery was a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Lincoln himself said that he had no intention of abolishing slavery and no power to do so.  It was the opposite for tariffs.  The Constitution gave the federal government the power to enact tariffs.  Tariffs were not a right reserved for states. To have Constitutional grounds for secession, the Southern states emphasized slavery in their secession documents. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, required the return of runaway slaves.  Some Northern states did not comply.  Their non-compliance gave the Southern states the argument that the North had broken the Constitutional agreement.

President Lincoln said repeatedly that the war against “the rebels” was to collect the tariff, not to abolish slavery. The Morrill Tariff was passed two days before Lincoln’ inauguration. (The Morrill Tariff passed in March 1961, imposed a tariff of 47%, and established a policy of high protectionism in American industry that would last for decades.)  The same Congress, without the South, also passed a guarantee to the South that if they stayed in the Union and paid the tariff, the US government would guarantee the existence of slavery in perpetuity.  They would put it in the Constitution that slavery could not be abolished even by Constitutional amendment. Lincoln endorsed the promise. 

For the Southern states the tariff was the issue, so they did not take up Lincoln’s offer that they pay the tariff in exchange for the protection of slavery.

The slavery explanation of the war was invented by dishonest northern historians who wanted to cover up Union war crimes by giving the war a moral justification.

On the sea coast of the country once known as Dahomey, there is a memorial to the black slaves sold into the New World by the black King of Dahomey.  It consists of an arch symbolizing the passage of hundreds of thousands of captives from Dahomey’s slave wars into slavery abroad. Do you suppose anyone with a degree in black studies knows this?  Or any Western journalist? Or any white liberal?  Certainly the indoctrinated at CNN do not know it.

Western history is so falsified against the white ethnic peoples of the West that they face dangers of which they are unaware.  The people in the West are a people deserted  by their own white intellectuals.

The purpose of all the propaganda about slavery and white racism is to put the majority population over a barrel so that they cannot defend themselves from demonization, exploitation, and a diminution of their rights.  It reaches ridiculous heights.  People who have never owned a slave are said to owe reparations to people who have never been a slave.  Indeed, white people, especially heterosexual white males, have been paying reparations for 60 years in the form of “affirmative action.”  “Affirmative action” is the policy of restricting access of qualified whites to university admission, employment, and promotion in order that lesser qualified blacks could be advanced. Many qualified white men were prevented from obtaining the benefit of an Ivy League network so that it could be handed to less qualified blacks.  They were denied jobs and promotions so that less qualified blacks could be advanced.

The official discrimination against merit reached a new high in the Biden regime’s DEI policy.  Corporations joined in.  Gillette, Bud Light, and other companies ran national advertisements demonizing white American men. Starbucks announced that its policy was not to hire or promote white males, and the stupid white males still flock to Starbucks to pay $6 for a coffee.  White males in America have grown so accustomed to discrimination that they don’t even complain.

In America, discrimination that is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been the policy of the US government and US corporations for 60 years,

And the blacks want more reparations. How can a people who have accepted their own demonization resist?

The post A Lesson on Slavery for CNN appeared first on LewRockwell.

The (former) President Zelenski of Ukraine is refusing any compromise in negotiations with Russia. He would be killed and replaced by a more right wing figure if he would consider otherwise.

In a speech on Sunday marking Ukraine’s independence Zelenski insisted of recapturing all of Ukraine including Crimea.

As the Washington Post summarizes (archived):

In Kyiv on Sunday, Ukraine’s Independence Day, Zelensky addressed the nation and vowed to restore its territorial integrity.

“Ukraine will never again be forced in history to endure the shame that the Russians call a ‘compromise,’” he said. “We need a just peace.”

He listed some of the regions occupied by Russia — including Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea — and said “no temporary occupation” could change the fact that the land belongs to Ukraine.

Zelenski thus rejects calls by U.S. President Trump to give up Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace.

One reason why he does so may be the personal danger he is in. Any compromise about territory may well cost his life.

The London Times continues to make propaganda for Nazis. After a recent whitewashing interview with Azov Nazi leader Biletsky (archived) it yesterday published an interview with the former leader of the fascist Right Sector in Odessa Serhii Sterneneko.

‘Russia has repeatedly tried to kill me — I must be doing something right’ (archived)

Sterneneko had a leading role in the 2014 massacres in Maidan Square and at the Trade Union’s House in Odessa. The Times is whitewashing his participation in those events. It does not mind to publish his threats against Zelenski:

[A]mong Ukraine’s younger generation of soldiers and civilians, Sternenko’s brand of truth to power has wide popularity. “I say what I think, and people like what I say.”

His views on President Putin’s demand for Ukraine to cede the territory it defends in the eastern Donbas region as a precondition for possible peace are typically direct. “If [President] Zelensky were to give any unconquered land away, he would be a corpse — politically, and then for real,” Sternenko said. “It would be a bomb under our sovereignty. People would never accept it.”

Sternenko, who himself has avoided the draft, wants the war to go on forever:

Indeed, as he discussed Russian intransigence and President Trump’s efforts to end the war, Sternenko’s thoughts on the possibility of peace appeared to be absent of any compromise over Ukrainian soil.

“At the end there will only be one victor, Russia or Ukraine,” he said. “If the Russian empire continues to exist in this present form then it will always want to expand. Compromise is impossible. The struggle will be eternal until the moment Russia leaves Ukrainian land.”

Other British media continue to promote the rise of Nazi affiliated figures in Ukraine. The Guardian adds by promoting the presidential campaign of the former Ukrainian general and now ambassador to the UK Valeri Zaluzhny:

In private conversations, Zaluzhnyi has not confirmed he plans to go into politics, but he has allowed himself to speculate on what kind of platform he could propose if he does make the decision. Those close to him say he sees Israel as a model, despite its current bloody actions in Gaza, viewing it as a small country surrounded by enemies and fully focused on defence.

He would style himself as a tough, wartime leader who would promise “blood, sweat and tears” to the Ukrainian people in return for saving the nation, channelling Winston Churchill. In one private conversation, he said: “I don’t know if the Ukrainian people will be ready for that, ready for these tough policies.”

A day before being fired as the commander of the Ukrainian army Zaluzhny took a selfie with the leader of the fascist Right Sector and commander of Right Sector brigade of Ukrainian military in front of a portrait of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and the fascist OUN flag.

bigger

The picture was already part of his campaign to become the leader of a Bandera-ized Ukraine.

It seems that the British deep-state does its best to support him in that.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine – Zelenski Rejects Giving Land as Fascists Promise To Kill Him appeared first on LewRockwell.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve been sold a bill of goods.”

“And the bill of goods was called multiculturalism.”

So said liberal evolutionary biologist, researcher, ex-academic, and now podcaster and commentator Brett Weinstein. He made his comments recently during a very intellectual discussion with famed clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, part of which was posted Friday to the latter’s YouTube channel. And the two men essentially issued a warning, albeit in the most highbrow tone. To wit:

Multiculturalism threatens Western civilization itself by prioritizing differences (read: diversity) over unity. If it is not “canceled,” the West very well may be.

The Multi-cult

The video clip opens with Weinstein, brother of famed mathematician and podcaster Eric Weinstein, expounding upon that “bill of goods.” He stated that the

problem with multiculturalism is that it sounds like something that those of us who like to interact with people from many different cultures should appreciate. But it’s in fact the opposite of … the value that we actually hold. The value that we actually hold I would call Western cosmopolitanism…. Multiculturalism is the idea that people should not join our societies, but they should maintain their own traditions in an isolated pocket, and that we should effectively reject the idea of becoming one people in the West.

At this point, Peterson interjected and pointed out that this ideology ignores

the fact that if you bring people together and reduplicate the situation of the world at large with no uniting meta-narrative … you also bring in all of the conflict.

Put simply, and as has been said, bring enough of “there” here, and here becomes there. For example, import the Third World, become the Third World.

By Bread Alone?

Peterson went on to say that this multiculturalist error is “fueled by … an underlying materialism.” He continued:

So maybe the notion is, if you bring diverse people from all over the world regardless of their culture and you provide them with sufficient economic opportunity — given that conflict is driven fundamentally by economic need, let’s say, or economic differences — that that will just vanish somehow, magically.

What’s generally unsaid is that this is a Marxist idea. The late Pope Benedict XVI addressed this phenomenon, in fact, when critiquing Karl Marx. He pointed out that the latter’s mistake was his viewing of man as a purely economic being. That is, human behavior is explainable, and problems remediable, the thinking goes, solely via an economic approach. (E.g., the communist notion that simply eliminating economic inequality will end human strife).

Yet man is not driven just by economics, important though that is. He also has intellectual, emotional, psychological, moral, and spiritual dimensions. Moreover, the Truth appears precisely the opposite of the Marxist thesis. Just consider, for example, that terrorist Osama bin Laden was worth approximately $30 million.

And why does the saying “An idle mind is the Devil’s workshop” exist? Why does the Chinese proverb inform, “When there’s food on the table there are many problems. When there’s no food on the table, there’s only one problem”? Answer:

Freeing man from economic stress, which is a good thing to do, also frees him up to fixate on other troubles, real or imagined. Know here that Karl Marx himself came from a well-to-do home. Had he needed to toil in the fields sunup to sunset just to subsist, it’s doubtful he’d have co-written The Communist Manifesto.

A Proposition Nation?

Weinstein also outlined two factors he believes drive human collaboration: genetic relatedness (kinship) and reciprocity (mutual benefit). The West’s strength, he asserted, lies in prioritizing reciprocity. This results in diverse individuals working together for shared wealth and progress. In contrast, kin-based systems limit collaboration, he averred.

Weinstein credits the Founders for this reciprocal standard, too. They created a framework that minimized advantages based on lineage, he essentially said, facilitating said collaboration.

Weinstein painted even more broadly as well, stating that

what we call the West, I believe, is most fundamentally about the agreement to put aside our lineages and collaborate because there is wealth to be produced.

United States of Money?

Peterson appeared to place greater emphasis on the importance of that “meta-narrative,” however. And I would, too, take issue with Weinstein’s interpretation of the West’s fundamentals. The reality is that during the West’s rise and heyday, its countries certainly had a sense of being a “national family.” For example, Briton G.K. Chesterton wrote in the early 1900s about how, sure, his countrymen might have their disagreements. But at the end of the day, they would always be “English.”

Then there were the sentiments expressed by founder John Adams in a July 1815 letter to Thomas Jefferson.

“The consanguinity [relationship based on common lineage] of our politics and our religion has been our great advantage,” he wrote. “It has made us one people, united in sentiment and in affection, as well as in interest and in destiny.”

Adams explained that this consanguinity was instrumental in our Revolutionary War victory and a significant bulwark of our new nation. He contrasted this with challenges more diverse lands faced.

In reality, though, the U.S. was never about prioritizing or ignoring old ethnic identities.

It was, during its most sober moments, about forging a new, common “ethnic” identity: American.

President Theodore Roosevelt emphasized this, do note, in his famous 1915 “no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism” speech.

Unfortunately, this now all seems a bit quaint, as hyphenating oneself is the norm today — even among patriots.

Diversity in Confusion

Regarding other matters, Weinstein also mentioned, innocently, that it’s “not a question” in America of “what God” you pray to. It is true, too, that this has no bearing on your constitutional rights.

But what God we pray to will have a major bearing on whether we’ll keep them.

As I explained in “The Acceptance Con” (2013), a people’s theistic orientation influences their conception of right and wrong.

Speaking of which, multiculturalism is also a corollary of, and a Trojan horse for, moral relativism (explained here). This may be its most dangerous aspect, in fact.

Lastly, there’s another kind of cultural divide in America, one that also has a “multicultural” effect: the homegrown philosophical divide. For instance, “liberals” and “conservatives” are now so different that they could be conceived as distinct and incompatible cultural groups.

The bottom line is that a common culture leads to having a common country. A thoroughly “multicultural” land can be held together — but only through the iron fist of tyranny.

For those interested, the Peterson/Weinstein discussion is below.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Liberal Ex-college Professor: ‘We’ve Been Sold a Bill of Goods … Called Multiculturalism’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post US Stake In Intel Is A Very Bad Idea appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

The post Migrants in Dresden harass women on the tram, then slash an American man’s face open as he tries to intervene appeared first on LewRockwell.

TERROR OUT OF ZION – IRGUN ZVAI LEUMI, LEHI, AND THE PALESTINE UNDERGROUND, 1929-1949 .pdf

“We fight, therefore we are.” This revision of Cartesian wisdom was enunciated by the late premier of Israel, Menachim Begin. It is the leitmotif of this brilliant study of the military origins of modern Israel. J. Bowyer Bell argues that the members of Irgun, Lehi (the Stern Gang), and the Zionist underground in British mandated Palestine had clear motives for the violent path they took: the creation of a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people in oppressed lands. These advocates of terror pitted themselves against not only the British and the Arabs, but also against less violent brethren like Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Yitzhak Rabin.

“This is the definitive story of desperate, dedicated revolutionaries who were driven to conclude that lives must be taken if Israel were to live. The dynamite bombing of the King David Hotel, the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo, and Count Bernardotte, in Palestine were but a few acts of terror which forced the British out of the Middle East. TERROR OUT OF ZION evaluates whether these acts were extremist or necessary, and whether these men and women were fanatics or freedom fighters.

“TERROR OUT OF ZION serves as a primer for those who would understand contemporary political divisions in Israel. It is based on careful historical research and interviews with surviving members of the Irgun, chronicling bombings, assassinations, hah- breadth prison escapes, and endless cycles of retaliation in the terror that gave birth to Israel, but, no less, continues to inform its political relations. Bell has fashioned an adventure story that also explains the sources of current tensions and frictions within Israel.”

Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question

Lenni Brenner, Zionism In the Age of the Dictators

Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir

(The original German version of the infamous proposal for collaboration between the Stern Gang and the Nazis)
(Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine
(Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany)

Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis

Ralph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism

Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel

Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?

Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement — 25th Anniversary Edition: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine

and John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.

The post Terror Out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestine Underground, 1929-1949 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Visto che mi ritrovo a dover commentare diversi “europeisti” a cui piace infilare la testa sotto la sabbia, mettiamo le cose in chiaro: cosa sta cercando di fare l'UE? Manipolare gli eventi attuali, oltre allo spazio politico ed economico, per permetterle di condensare un'integrazione politica, fiscale e militare a livello di continente sotto l'egida di una serie di istituzioni: la Commissione europea, la BCE, la Corte di Giustizia europea, l'euro digitale (con l'aiuto dell'ONU, tra l'altro). In questo modo, con l'unione fiscale soprattutto, verrebbero a crearsi gli “Stati Uniti d'Europa”... ma con la struttura politica dell'URSS. Per questo l'UE vorrebbe muovere il centro finanziario del mondo dagli USA all'Europa. Ma sapete una cosa? Si è trattato di un prestito, si è sempre trattato di un prestito sin dalla Seconda guerra mondiale. È così che la famigerata cricca di Davos, l'élite colonialista europea, ha conquistato i territori: inondare quei Paesi “interessanti” per loro con capitali, farli sviluppare finanziariamente senza una base di capitale costruita solidamente nel tempo, derubarli delle risorse a ogni livello, richiamare i capitali prestati. L'UE avrebbe voluto fare lo stesso sia con gli USA che con la Cina (in Russia non è riuscita a penetrare invece). Entrambe, però, hanno alzato il dito medio. Ora si sta mettendo davvero fine al colonialismo finanziario (versione “aggiornata” di quello territoriale).

______________________________________________________________________________________

da Zerohedge

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/perche-i-baby-boomer-francesi-rimanderanno)

La Francia continua a non riuscire a risanare i conti pubblici. Dati recenti dell'Insee suggeriscono che la forte dipendenza dai trasferimenti diretti da parte di alcuni gruppi sociali, in particolare i pensionati, unita al loro crescente peso elettorale, potrebbe rappresentare un ostacolo fondamentale. Questi fattori rendono più difficile per il governo intraprendere significativi aggiustamenti di bilancio senza correre il rischio di instabilità politica.

Sulla base di questi risultati e data la vicinanza alle elezioni locali (1° trimestre 2026) e presidenziali (2° trimestre 2027), continuiamo a ritenere che vi siano buone probabilità che il pacchetto di risanamento di circa €44 miliardi recentemente annunciato sia destinato ai servizi pubblici piuttosto che ai trasferimenti diretti. Non possiamo escludere la possibilità che venga sostanzialmente annacquato.

Forze che ostacolano il consolidamento fiscale

La Francia, dal punto di vista storico, ha faticato a ridurre il proprio deficit fiscale. Una delle ragioni principali è che i tagli alla spesa tendono a colpire i gruppi con maggiore influenza elettorale. Ciò è stato illustrato alla fine del 2024, quando l'allora Primo ministro, Michel Barnier, propose di rinviare l'indicizzazione dei prezzi delle pensioni nel bilancio 2025. L'obiettivo era di risparmiare fino a €4 miliardi, ma il suo governo fu infine fatto cadere da una mozione di sfiducia sostenuta dalla maggioranza dei partiti che dichiaravano di difendere i pensionati.

In un working paper del 1989, gli autori (Alesina e Drazen) osservarono che i gruppi sociali possono posticipare strategicamente un risanamento fiscale necessario. Questi gruppi ritardano le misure nella speranza che i costi associati vengano infine sostenuti da un altro gruppo. In tali contesti gli aggiustamenti fiscali si basano su gruppi sociali meno attivi, o sono innescati da una crisi o da uno shock esterno, come la perdita di fiducia degli investitori.

Un aggiustamento fiscale davvero necessario

Il peggioramento dei conti pubblici e le prospettive di crescita stagnanti hanno reso la riduzione del deficit in Francia sempre più urgente. Il saldo primario necessario per stabilizzare il rapporto debito/PIL tra il 2026 e il 2030 è stimato a -0,7%. Tuttavia i risultati della Francia sono deboli: il saldo primario medio dal 2002 al 2019 ha raggiunto -1,9% e si prevede che raggiungerà in media -2,3% nel periodo 2026-2030.

Nel frattempo la popolazione rimane profondamente divisa su come ridurre la spesa, nonostante la crescente consapevolezza delle rischiose prospettive fiscali del Paese. Il debito pubblico è una delle cinque principali preoccupazioni nei sondaggi d'opinione.

Mappare i gruppi interessati

Per comprendere perché i risanamenti fiscali basati sulla spesa pubblica siano così difficili da realizzare, utilizziamo un recente set di dati fornito dall'Insee per stimare il potenziale costo dell'austerità per diversi gruppi sociali. Questo set di dati offre informazioni sul reddito totale delle famiglie, al lordo e al netto dei trasferimenti pubblici diretti e indiretti.

I trasferimenti diretti includono tutti i trasferimenti monetari come pensioni, indennità di disoccupazione e sussidi. I trasferimenti indiretti rilevano il valore imputato dei servizi pubblici ricevuti, tra cui assistenza sanitaria, istruzione o assistenza abitativa.

Sulla base di questi dati, costruiamo due metriche di esposizione:

1. esposizione diretta, definita come il rapporto tra trasferimenti diretti e reddito totale;
2. esposizione indiretta, definita analogamente per i trasferimenti indiretti.

Maggiore è l'esposizione di un gruppo, più costosi sarebbero per esso i tagli alla spesa.

Visualizziamo queste relazioni utilizzando un grafico a bolle (si veda il primo grafico), in cui la posizione di ciascun gruppo sociale riflette la sua esposizione e la dimensione di ciascuna bolla corrisponde alla sua quota nella popolazione totale. Questi gruppi sociali non si escludono a vicenda. Il grafico evidenzia quali gruppi dipendono maggiormente dalla redistribuzione pubblica e sono quindi più propensi a resistere o ritardare un aggiustamento fiscale.

Vulnerabilità agli shock esterni

In questo quadro i pensionati emergono come il gruppo sociale che sosterrebbe il costo diretto più elevato derivante da qualsiasi riduzione dei trasferimenti diretti, i quali rappresentano quasi il 60% del loro reddito totale. Seguono i diplomati della scuola secondaria di primo grado, per i quali i trasferimenti diretti, e in particolare le indennità di disoccupazione, rappresentano quasi il 40% del loro reddito.

Entrambi i gruppi presentano anche elevati livelli di esposizione indiretta, con trasferimenti indiretti che rappresentano circa il 40% del loro reddito iniziale (al lordo della ridistribuzione). Tuttavia, nella popolazione, il livello di esposizione indiretta è inferiore e distribuito in modo più uniforme.

Questi risultati confermano che il risanamento fiscale attraverso tagli ai servizi pubblici potrebbe incontrare una minore opposizione politica, poiché una quota minore della popolazione presenta un'elevata esposizione indiretta. D'altro canto è probabile che i trasferimenti diretti (come le pensioni) incontrino una forte resistenza, dato che i baby boomer sono tra i più colpiti e ora rappresentano oltre il 50% dell'elettorato.

Tutto ciò ostacola la capacità del governo di prevenire lo sbilanciamento fiscale e rende il Paese vulnerabile a shock esterni, come la perdita di fiducia degli investitori. Tuttavia sussiste un rischio elevato che le misure di risanamento del Primo ministro, François Bayrou, vengano vanificate da concessioni politiche durante i dibattiti parlamentari autunnali.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Now comes the grunt work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The definition of a parasite is:

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

The definition of social class is:

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

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

The oligarchy is the parasite class.

Introducing Elite Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Whole Article

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

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

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

What is Martial Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs That Martial Law is Coming

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

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

Read the Whole Article

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

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

Yale’s LISTEN Study

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

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

To quote the study:

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

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

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

General Health

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

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

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

Total spike protein present in each participant at final evaluation

This data collectively shows that:

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

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

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

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

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

Immunologic Suppression and Viral Reactivation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autoimmunity

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Whole Article

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Whole Article

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

Donald Trump recently made a strikingly personal comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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