Aggregatore di feed

I actually thought there might be some good news coming out of the Donald Trump White House but it turns out that I was likely mistaken. Trump treated the American public and a worldwide audience to an extended harangue targeting Nigeria for its alleged mistreatment and even killing of Christians. He threatened something like a military intervention similar to his aggressive posturing in Latin America and the Middle East complete with US soldiers “boots on the ground” to address the situation.

Listening to the hardly coherent bombast coming out of Trump’s mouth my immediate reaction was to assume that nothing would happen beyond the threats and some sanctioning as Nigeria is a long distance way away from US bases and it would be a tough nut to crack for many reasons. Trump prefers to pick on countries that represent easier targets for his warlike demeanor. So I figured it was all a bit of theater, likely inspired by some administration clown whispering in Trump’s ear shortly before our president decided to say something to show how tough he is.

Where I saw the good news was the suggestion that the United States government might actually be interested in doing something to protect Christian minorities, though even that thought was largely dispelled when Ahmed al–Sharaa the de facto head of state of Syria, who currently goes by that birth name after operating under an alias, showed up at the White House to be greeted by a grinning Trump and his usual coterie of sycophants. Visitors to this site no doubt have a pretty good idea what Ahmed al–Sharaa represents as a former Emir of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) after involvement with the Al Nusra Front al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorist groups. He was notoriously a head chopper who until recently had a $10 million US government bounty linked to his apprehension and punishment. He has killed plenty of Christians as well as Shia Muslims and all of those sects in between and his new regime has continued the practice pretty much with Christians and Druze “heretics” being killed by militants vaguely attached to the new government.

Joe Biden had already lifted the bounty on Ahmed al-Sharaa and now Donald Trump has greeted him like an old friend. He even went so far as to spray his neck with a new cologne that he is marketing at $249 a bottle called ‘Victory 45-47’ the significance of which is clear. Trump explained that “It’s the best fragrance,” before presenting two gold statuette-shaped bottles in his image and engraved with his jagged signature that the cologne comes in. “Just take that, the other one is for your wife,” Trump said before asking “How many wives?” Al-Sharaa laughed: “One!” and Trump joked, “With you guys, I never know. Right?” During the encounter, Trump praised al-Sharaa as a “very strong leader” and “tough guy,” adding: “He comes from a very tough place… we’ve all had a rough past.” The exchange was one more indication of the maladroit instincts of Donald Trump every time he opens his mouth and Trump’s rough past that he regularly alludes to must include his draft dodging of the Vietnam conflict back in 1968.

To no one’s surprise, the key to the shift in alignments from terrorist designated enemy to good friend was certainly the declaration by the Syrian government that it would have normal diplomatic and other relations with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has been expanding into Lebanon as well as into Syria and also appears to be heavily involved with Pentagon plans to create new nominally US military bases near Gaza and Damascus. Here I was expecting some relief for the beleaguered Christians in the Middle East and instead I got more of the same sectarian repression all due to Israeli interests. Thank you Mr Trump! I won’t ask who owns you!

And it appears, of course, that there is inevitably Israel involved when one is asking about religious conflicts. The Zionist state has been persecuting Christians in Palestine as well as in Lebanon and Syria since 1948. When Israel was “founded” the Christian percentage of the population among Palestinians was approaching 8%. Now it is closer to 2% and the shift has largely been due to theft of properties and other pressure on the Arabs to force them to leave and surrender their remaining rights. Most recently, this has included harassing of and spitting on Christian worshippers while also creating difficulties for Christians to gather to celebrate their holidays including Christmas and Easter. This pressure has been consistent and has come from successive Israeli governments, not from Muslims, though it has been worse and epitomized by the cruelty of the current monster Benjamin Netanyahu, who is supported by a coalition headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, who has made very clear his view that ALL Palestinians should be on the receiving end of a police state and ought to be eliminated. There is no exemption in his thinking for Palestinian Christians, are you paying attention President Trump?

Israel’s record of sticking it to Palestinian and other Christians was also very clear even before Gaza erupted and since that time Israel has destroyed churches, hospitals and orphanages in the Strip that were founded by Christian groups. The toll included what has sometimes been described as possibly the oldest Christian church in the Middle East, the Greek Orthodox church of Saint Porphyrius, which was founded in the fifth century, and which was bombed by Israel in October 2023. A reported eighteen of its congregants and other Christians and local Muslims who were sheltering in the church and surrounding buildings were killed in the attack which had no military significance and was little more that a signal to the Gazans that none of them were safe.

So Donald Trump is prepared to punish Nigerians for alleged crimes against Christians but when it is Israel committing the crimes they get a pass. Should anyone be surprised at that as Trump is hardly a practicing Christian as he describes himself as “nondenominational” and does not appear to be affiliated with any actual church. There are also some rumors that he converted to the Chabad sect of Judaism in 2017. In any event, Trump is clearly owned by the state of Israel in the person of Benjamin Netanyahu and by the Israel Lobby in the United States. Whether this is due to the fact that he is being blackmailed via Jeffrey Epstein disclosures or driven by his own personal beliefs and inclinations is debatable.

In any event, it is clear that Trump takes direction from Netanyahu and the Jewish lobby, evident most recently in the letter he sent to the president of Israel Isaac Herzog calling for a pardon for the prime minister and his wife, who are facing corruption charges in Israel. The letter was more-or-less a repeat performance of a verbal plea that Trump made when he was addressing the Knesset in Israel in October. It includes a bizarre largely self-promotional questionable claim: “I believe that the ‘case’ against Bibi, who has fought alongside me for a long time, including against the very tough adversary of Israel, Iran, is a political, unjustified prosecution,” a sign, one of many, that Trump mentally speaking is not tightly wrapped as the old expression goes as Iran can hardly be described as a threat to the United States.

The Trump White House sellout to Israel and its interests is as complete as can be. Paul Craig Roberts, musing over the letter to Herzog, asks “Is there to be no end of Trump’s tow-kowing to Israel? Trump was the first to break the rule and acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Trump committed an act of war against Iran for Israel. Trump supports Israel’s genocide of Palestine, supplying the money, weapons, and diplomatic support. Trump claims a ceasefire despite Israel’s continuing bombings, shootings, and destruction of Palestine. Trump has turned against US Reps Thomas Massie [and Marjorie Taylor Green, two] of his earliest supporters, for refusing to follow the Israeli line. Trump has demanded that universities prevent students and faculty from criticizing and protesting Israel’s massacre of Palestinians and theft of their country.” Israel controls “…the United States by occupying the financial sector, entertainment, education, Congress, and US foreign policy. Israel has succeeded in identifying any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism and is succeeding in having Congress and states pass laws that criminalize anti-semitism.”

One might add that Israel is now seeking from Trump a twenty year military aid commitment that will presumably add more to the current $3.8 billion in military assistance guaranteed each year by Washington. Over the past two years, since October 7th, that sum has in practice been greatly exceeded, coming to $21.7 billion coming from both Trump and Genocide Joe Biden. Will they get the 20 years guarantee from Trump and the other Israel-first corrupted traitors in Congress? You betcha!

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post Is Donald Trump the ‘Fidei Defensor’ for Christians? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In 2003 the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council (OLC) issued a memo which declared the use of torture in ‘authorized military interrogations’ as legal when done under the ‘president’s constitutional authority to direct a war’.

The memo was widely condemned. The Obama administration withdrew it but refrained from prosecuting the torturers which had used it as cover.

The Trump administration now issued a comparable OLC memo to justify its wanton killing of alleged drug smugglers at sea.

Starting in September the Trump administration announced 19 strikes on boats in the Caribbean which have killed at least 76 seafarers. Most of them were random poor people:

One was a fisherman struggling to eke out a living on $100 a month. Another was a career criminal. A third was a former military cadet. And a fourth was a down-on-his-luck bus driver.

The men had little in common beyond their Venezuelan seaside hometowns and the fact all four were among the more than 60 people killed since early September when the U.S. military began attacking boats that the Trump administration alleges were smuggling drugs.

The argument of the new OLC memo is even more frivolous (archived) than the torturous reasoning of the former one:

The opinion, which runs nearly 50 pages, also argues that the United States is in a “non-international armed conflict” waged under the president’s Article II authorities, a core element to the analysis that the strikes are permissible under domestic law.

The armed-conflict argument, which was also made in a notice to Congress from the administration last month, is fleshed out in more detail by the OLC. The opinion also states that drug cartels are selling drugs to finance a campaign of violence and extortion, according to four people.

That assertion, which runs counter to the conventional wisdom that traffickers use violence to protect their drug business, appears to be part of the effort to shoehorn the fight against cartels into a law-of-war framework, analysts said.

The true purpose of drug cartels is obviously to make money. There is no evidence that any drug cartel ever has been or is in business because it wanted to create violence.

By framing the military campaign as a war, the administration is able to argue that murder statutes do not apply, said Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group and a former Pentagon lawyer. “If the U.S. is at war, then it would be lawful to use lethal force as a first resort,” she said. The president, she argued, “is fabricating a war so that he can get around the restrictions on lethal force during peacetime, like murder statutes.”

There is nobody internationally who will accept such a stupid argument as justification for blowing up random boats at sea.

UN officials have condemned such strikes:

Volker Türk, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, has called for an investigation into the strikes, in what appeared to mark the first such condemnation of its kind from a United Nations organization.
…
“These attacks and their mounting human cost are unacceptable,” Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for Türk’s office, relayed his message on Friday at a regular U.N. briefing.

“The U.S. must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats.”

She said Türk believed “airstrikes by the United States of America on boats in the Caribbean and in the Pacific violate international human rights law.”

At the recent meeting of the G7 foreign ministers the French publicly declared that any such boat strikes are illegal:

In what appears to be the most significant condemnation so far from a G7 ally, France’s foreign minister says that the deadly boat strikes carried out by the United States in the Caribbean since early September violate international law.
…
“We have observed with concern the military operations in the Caribbean region, because they violate international law and because France has a presence in this region through its overseas territories, where more than a million of our compatriots reside,” Barrot said.

Britain is allegedly withholding some intelligence from the U.S. because of concern about the boat strikes.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio denies that but British officials confirmed their standpoint:

Marco Rubio has denied claims Britain stopped intelligence sharing with the US over its strikes on “narcoboats” in the Caribbean.
…
It was a “false story”, Mr Rubio said, adding the US had a strong partnership with the UK.
…
However, British officials reportedly believed the strikes, which have killed at least 76 people, break international law and agree with an assessment by the UN’s human rights chief that they amount to “extrajudicial killing”.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has likewise stopped intelligence sharing on the issue:

“The fight against drugs must be subordinated to the human rights of the Caribbean people,” Petro said on X.

Earlier this fall, Petro accused U.S. government officials of murder, alleging that a casualty of a mid-September strike was an innocent Colombian fisherman.

Anyone in the U.S. intelligence services and military should be aware that taking part in such strikes is a criminal endeavor which may get them prosecuted in international courts.

The OLC memo is a way too flimsy a cover to protect anyone.

An admiral recognized this and skipped out:

Top officers, including Adm. Alvin Holsey, the head of Southern Command, sought caution on such strikes, according to two people, who like several others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Holsey wanted to make sure any option presented to the president was fully vetted first, one person said. In October, he abruptly announced he was resigning at year’s end, which will be about a year into what is typically a three-year assignment.

More soldiers should follow the man’s example.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Justice Department Office Which Justified Torture Now Argues for Killing appeared first on LewRockwell.

An old priest once used a metaphor to describe how the higher-ups in the Church sometimes were out of touch with the faithful: “They have no idea of how that works when you’re in the trenches. Their desks are too far away from the line of fire.”

I recalled the priest’s words when I heard about the recent doctrinal note regarding some Marian titles. Specifically, the note deals with the title of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. The issue came up in the class for our adults seeking the sacraments of initiation. This was a surprise because the people involved are Hispanics whose families either neglected their religious upbringing, are intending to marry Catholics, or have a Pentecostal background. None of them had heard of the phrase Co-Redemptrix, but they were curious about Mary’s intercession, which they felt was somehow downgraded by the Vatican statement.

Do the people who work with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith have contact with ordinary believers? The note refers to many different inquiries about the titles of Mary in “recent decades,” and it is said that this particular doctrinal “clarification” was prepared before the death of Pope Francis.

If so, it reflects some of the style of his personal magisterium and some of the problems of his language—and, especially, how it was translated. Specifically, the paragraph that is key to the issue is an example:

Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “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). When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful.

The Spanish original did not say “inappropriate,” which does not seem to be a category of doctrinal judgment. It read inoportuno. “Appropriate” is a social worker kind of description. To say something is not opportune implies a context of possible misunderstanding. This was apparently the objection of Cardinal Ratzinger, who nevertheless, as the note admits, “did not deny that there were good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title.” St. John Henry Newman thought something like this about papal infallibility, with due respect, of course.

The note in the original did not say “always,” either, an adverb that seems like an egregious interpretation. There is an air of casualness about this note. It doesn’t bear the weight of a pondered reply about the maturity of the idea as Co-Redemptrix. After mentioning that St. John Paul had spoken about Mary as Co-Redemptrix (enough for me to be convinced) the note says Pope Francis was “opposed” to the title, as if that assurance was a theological argument.

There is much written in the note that is solid and edifying Mariology, but I was expecting something about how all Marian theology has to do with the humanity of Christ. The Incarnation is the reason we see the involvement of Mary in the work of Redemption. My priestly ministry is a gift of God and not my mother’s doing, but it would be impossible if she had not collaborated with God in my coming to be.

The other gap I felt in the discussion was Colossians 1:24, where Paul says, “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” Christ made it so that we could participate in His work of Redemption—not because His sufferings were not sufficient but as a sign of our sharing with Him in the life of grace. Paul was a cooperator in the Redemption, how much more was Mary?

Was the note just clearing the desk of the Dicastery of Pope Francis’ agenda? I agree with Fr. Perricone’s recent article wondering about the mind of Pope Leo. I was at a Jubilee audience recently (October 25) where the Holy Father referred to Nicholas of Cusa.

I am curious about the reference, especially because Nicholas was a great defender of the unity of the Church and the papacy after the Council of Constance. He was an apologist especially important in speaking to the leaders of the Northern European countries, which then seemed on the edge of schism (déjà vu all over again). But what the pope said in a rhetorical flourish confuses me:

Nicholas of Cusa spoke of a “learned ignorance,” a sign of intelligence. The protagonist of some of his writings is a curious figure: the idiot. He is a simple person, who had not studied, and he asks scholars basic questions that challenge their certainties. This is also true in the Church today. How many questions challenge our teaching! Questions from young people, questions from the poor, questions from women, questions from those who have been silenced or condemned because they are different from the majority. We are in a blessed time: so many questions! The Church becomes an expert in humanity if she walks with humanity and has the echo of its questions in her heart.

The Church may have the echoes of questions in her heart, but she also has the timeless answers. They must be articulated in a way that our contemporaries can understand—but not to the prejudice of doctrine. That is my basic objection to so much language about “synodality.” It seems to be relativistic, like there is a democracy of doctrine, a free market of ideas competing for expression. The questions are to reformulate received tradition, not to change it according to current climatic conditions, intellectual and emotional.

The note seems of a piece with some of the rigmarole of “synodality” because it has a tone not of studied theological reasoning (like what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the “maturity” of the idea’s formulation) but almost of political correctness. Instead, it is: “We don’t talk that way. It is inappropriate.” Inappropriate would be like mentioning in a eulogy that the deceased owed you money. (It might also be inopportune, and inconvenient—another and better word in the note—but that is not to deny there was a debt.)

Further, the adverb “always inappropriate,” in (only) the English version, which seems interpretative, seems more like Emily Post. Instead of saying something is “incorrect,” we have the “opposition” of a former pope (in contrast to one of his sainted predecessors). Instead of saying we are unable to make this expression a de fide declaration, we hear that we should “never” say that.

All of this might be a twist on what Nicholas of Cusa said about “learned ignorance,” but I think he meant intellectual humility, not what is called virtue signaling.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post An Inopportune Doctrinal Note appeared first on LewRockwell.

The criminal proxy war is destroying its Western architects and sponsors.

The latest scandal involves $100 million in graft by senior Ukrainian government ministers and Zelensky’s friend, known as “his wallet”. The racketeering and Western complicity account for why this war drags on, with thousands of Ukrainian casualties every week.

The thieves in Kiev are only the scum that float to the surface. The real criminals are the Western so-called leaders who have enabled the entire war racket, a racket that bleeds Western societies and which is no longer concealable.

Even Western media are openly reporting the brazen corruption of the Kiev regime, with many commentators questioning how long the nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, can remain in office, given the mire of sleaze engulfing him.

The Western media – in hock to their governments’ political agenda – have always played down the rampant corruption in Kiev, even though official U.S. and European auditing officials have at times flagged up the issue as a matter of grave concern. The European Union itself has half-admitted there is an endemic problem by insisting on reforms to clean up corruption as a condition for Ukraine joining the bloc in the future.

Up to now, the audacious racketeering in Kiev has been partly covered up by Western media claiming that it was “Russian propaganda” to smear Ukraine and its NATO sponsors. Well, it turns out that the rank thieving and money laundering in Kiev is not Russian propaganda. It is a fact that even the Western media can no longer ignore.

Still, the cover-up continues somewhat. Incredibly, Western governments and media are continuing to tolerate Zelensky and his cronies crying for more money, instead of demanding his resignation.

Four months ago, Zelensky, who has cancelled elections and made himself president indefinitely, tried to curb Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies by removing their independent powers. That blatant move sparked mass protests, and he had to backtrack quickly amid public outcry.

This week, the same agencies uncovered the biggest corruption scandal yet in Ukraine’s long history of graft. The country’s energy sector was being milked by embezzlement and kickback schemes implicating senior ministers, industry chiefs, and a personal friend and business associate of Zelensky, who has fled overseas.

The justice minister, German Galuschenko, and energy minister Svetlana Grinchuk have had to quit pending an investigation. The alleged mastermind of the embezzlement is Timur Mindich, who fled the country before being arrested. He is a friend and business partner of Zelensky, who has gotten rich on government contracts since Zelensky became president in 2019, after laughably promising voters that he would eradicate Kiev’s notorious corruption.

The latest scheme involved contractors, who are tendering to build protection infrastructure for the country’s power industry, paying massive kickbacks to regime chiefs and business heads.

As the country suffers blackouts from the energy sector being hit by the war with Russia, it transpires that the problem has been greatly exacerbated by the Kiev regime being too busy siphoning off money rather than protecting the industry to serve citizens. The scandal is all the more grotesque as the nation faces mid-winter shortages and its soldiers are being killed amid collapsing frontlines in the east of the country.

Since the NATO proxy war against Russia escalated in February 2022, it is estimated that the United States and the European Union have pumped around $400 billion of Western taxpayers’ money into Ukraine. Western citizens have been bled dry by this war racket, which has enriched the military-industrial complex while paying off the Kiev regime.

President Donald Trump seems to have grown leery of the racket. Under his presidency, Washington has scaled back the money supply. Not so the European elite who keep pumping public money into the cesspit.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán pointed out the madness of the EU leadership for insisting on throwing more money into Ukraine in light of the “mafia” under Zelensky. Orbán said his country is refusing to donate any more funds to Ukraine.

No doubt other European states are taking note of the despicable, criminal farce. As EU citizens endure increasing economic hardship from austerity and mounting living costs, their political leadership insists on supporting Ukraine in a futile proxy war.

This war should never have started and could have been avoided if the U.S. and European governments had engaged in diplomatic efforts with Russia. The NATO powers wanted a proxy war, and they, along with the servile media, concocted a fairytale narrative about “brave, noble” Ukraine fighting for supposed Western values against “Russian aggression.”

The conflict has persisted for nearly four years. European economies have been wrecked, and up to 2 million Ukrainian soldiers have been slaughtered – all for the Russophobic fantasy among NATO ideologues to “defeat Russia”.

The war has been a senseless bloodbath that has been sustained by Western lies and extortion of the Western public to prop up a corrupt regime in Kiev.

Now the corruption of the racket has become so putrid, it can no longer be covered up.

It is becoming politically precarious for Euro leaders to make the case for funneling more public funds to a regime that is siphoning off that money.

Hence, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and her coterie of Russophobic elites, are proposing that billions will be routed to Ukraine not with public funds but with frozen Russian assets. As if that would make it any less criminal.

This week, Von der Leyen appealed to the European Parliament that €140 billion of Russian funds confiscated by the EU should be used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. These insane warmongers don’t know when to stop.

In the end, it’s fitting justice. The criminal proxy war is destroying its Western architects and sponsors. The Kiev cesspit is dragging them down. Good riddance.

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

The post Kiev’s Corruption Cesspit Is Dragging the Complicit EU Down With It appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have written a number of articles for which I have received little response about the horrible mistake humanity has made by entering into the digital revolution and the AI it spawned.  These disastrous developments are now being institutionalized in all societies.  They bring the end of human autonomy, independence, control, objective truth, freedom, and awareness of reality.

The digital revolution destines humans to live in a reality created for them by those who control the data bases and thereby reality.  Already AI companies are working to create the belief that a computer program, a chatbot, is a real person.  You can now have a hologram of your parents or some other deceased relative or friend to advise you and sympathize with you as you experience the challenges of life.

The 2wai apt allows a person to load footage of a loved one which then is converted into an AI avatar that the person can continue to have a relationship with after the person’s death. 

What if the loved ones we’ve lost could be part of our future? pic.twitter.com/oFBGekVo1R

— Calum Worthy (@CalumWorthy) November 11, 2025

The transition of human life from objective reality into AI created reality is what is meant by science fiction writers, who are no longer writing fiction, when they describe a world in which those who control the narrative rule. Humans are being locked up in an artificial reality.  There is still a real reality, but like in The Matrix humans don’t live in it.

I wonder if people understood the deadly threat that AI presents to them whether they would exterminate everyone associated with AI and the digital revolution before humanity is exterminated.  A person who lives in artificial reality is an exterminated person.

A person who lives in an artificially created reality is no longer a human capable of objective thought. As this is our destiny, it no longer matters whether world nuclear war wipes out the human species. They are already being wiped out by AI and the digital revolution.   Caitlin Johnstone tells us about it.

As Peter Koenig says, we must immediately return to the analogue system before we cease to exist. See this. 

But we won’t be permitted, and don’t seem to be inclined. Instead of resisting, humans are willingly entering into artificial existence. A 32-year-old Japanese woman has participated in a wedding ceremony with an artificial intelligence chatbot she developed using OpenAI’s ChatGPT platform, marking her the first to marry an artificial creation.

The post The Destruction of Reality appeared first on LewRockwell.

Came across an old Hampton Institute tweet:

“If you don’t like being exploited (employee, tenant), then become the exploiter (boss/owner, landlord)” is the capitalist mindset that has been drilled into all of us since we were kids. The real solution is to end exploitation (capitalism) altogether.

You run into this sort of argument all the time when interacting with capitalism supporters.

If people can’t make enough money to get by then they should get better-paying jobs.

If people don’t like getting kicked around by an abusive status quo then they should climb their way into a socioeconomic strata that isn’t getting kicked around as much.

If someone doesn’t like being the nail then they should become the hammer.

They deflect criticisms of the abusive system by babbling about what people can do as individuals to be less abused personally.

It’s like a horror movie villain trapping a bunch of people in a pyramid-shaped room and then filling it up with water so that only the ones who fight their way to the top can get air. He goes, “You don’t like drowning? Better not be among those who are underwater, then!”

In this horror movie, the people don’t curse the villain or swear they’ll kill him. Instead they just say “Well it’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best one possible!” If someone less fortunate manages to pop their head above water for a second and say “Please! We need air!”, they shove him back down and climb on his shoulders saying “Well you need to fight harder to get to the top then.”

Saying “Don’t like drowning? Then fight your way to the top” completely ignores the fact that the entire room is deliberately structured so that there will always necessarily be a large group of people who are drowning. Pointing out the fact that it is technically possible for someone as an individual to claw their way to the top is just a way of avoiding the need to address the abusive nature of the overall system which is premised on the permanent existence of a disadvantaged class.

Not everyone can be an employer; some people have got to be their employees, or their job doesn’t exist. Not everyone can be a landlord; landlords require rent-payers in order to exist. There can’t be a top ten percent who are living comfortably without a bottom ninety percent who aren’t.

This whole dystopia is built on top of an underclass of low-wage workers keeping the gears of industry turning; if they all quit today, the entire economy would be instantly obliterated. Saying “If those low-wage workers want better wages they should stop being low-wage workers” is telling a man to stop drowning while you are holding him underwater by standing on his head.

And what’s really crazy is that in this horror movie, the villain is entirely within reach. He’s standing there taunting everyone at the top of the room from a platform where he controls the water levels, and his legs are right there within grabbing distance. But instead of grabbing those legs and pulling him down so they can drain the room and save everyone, they’re fighting each other for air and saying anyone who drowns is to blame for their own drowning.

Craziest thing you can imagine, really. I wouldn’t even pay to watch that movie, because it’s too unbelievable.

And yet here we are.

_______________

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

The post In Capitalism They Tell You To Become the Hammer If You Don’t Like Being the Nail appeared first on LewRockwell.

I knew that a story like this would eventually erupt in Ukraine and even make the headlines of the New York Times and the Financial Times.

Our mainstream media is totally corrupt and millions of people in the West are still suffering from too much cognitive dissonance to recognize that their governments are totally corrupt. Nevertheless, the guys who have long been running Ukraine are so outrageously corrupt that it was only a matter of time before they overplayed their hand so crassly that it couldn’t go unnoticed, especially with Ukraine’s dictator, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, becoming increasingly unpopular.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) (stood up by the Obama administration to facilitate USAID to Ukraine) claims it has uncovered evidence that senior figures in Zelenskyy’s inner circle took $100 million of kickbacks on construction projects to protect power stations from Russian missile attacks.

At the center of the investigation is Zelenskyy’s friend and business associate, Timur Mindich. Investigators characterize Mindich as the “co-organizer” of the alleged scheme, and that approximately $100 million of illicit funds were siphoned through his office.

“He controlled the work of the so-called ‘laundry room’, where criminally-obtained funds were laundered,” a NABU spokesman said.

Mindich — co-owner of production company Kvartal 95 Studio, which Zelenskyy co-founded — fled Ukraine to Israel the day before the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) launched raids.

Kvartal 95, in association with 1+1 Media Group, produced the wildly popular Servant of the People television show, starring Zelenskyy as a Ukrainian schoolteacher who runs for president on an anti-corruption platform. Servant of the People ran for three seasons between 2015 to 2019, and its popularity greatly helped Zelenskky to win the 2019 presidential election.

1+1 Media Group was owned by Ukrainian oligarch and Israeli citizen, Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is purportedly in pre-trial detention in Ukraine on charges of money laundering and contract murder.

According to a report in Politico, Timur Mindich was tipped off about the forthcoming raid of his office and apartment, and fled to Israel. In what appears to be part political theater, NABU has released images of his opulent apartment in Kiev, replete with a golden toilet and bidet with a matching golden toilet brush.

Yesterday (November 15) The Times of Israel published an interesting profile of Mindich (see Zelensky associate at crux of Ukrainian corruption case said to have fled to Israel).

As I have been reporting on this newsletter since 2022, Ukraine has long been regarded as one of the most corrupt countries on earth. While the country’s median household income is around $4,000 per year, a small group of oligarchs have amassed billions through their acquisitions of energy, agriculture, defense, and mining assets.

Some of these oligarchs, such as Victor Pinchuk and Mykola Zlochevsky, used their wealth to establish close ties with the Clinton and Biden families. Pinchuk was the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation. Zlochevsky was the front man of the Burisma gas company, of which Hunter Biden was a richly paid board member. The true majority owner was Ihor Kolomoyskyi. It wouldn’t surprise me if he also slips away (if he hasn’t already) before his case goes to trial.

This $100 million (small potatoes) scandal that is making MSM headlines is likely the tip of the iceberg, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the scandal is at least partly political theater to give the poor and beleaguered Ukrainian people the impression that their National Anti-Corruption Bureau is actually doing its job.

Because ordinary Ukrainians are increasingly suffering from power outages due to Russian attacks on their energy infrastructure, they will likely find it especially distasteful that Zelenskky’s inner circle has been siphoning funds that were supposed to bolster energy infrastructure defenses. Thus, the scandal may serve as an excuse to get rid of Zelenskky, who has already lost much of the mystique he once enjoyed in our deranged West.

Lord knows how many billions have been stolen by these jolly fellows and their cronies in the U.S. government.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Ukrainian Corruption Scandal Likely Tip of Iceberg appeared first on LewRockwell.

In refusing to recognize that inequality had the potential to bring down the entire system, our delay has made that reckoning inevitable.

The theme here is problems are not resolved, they’re papered over with profitable faux fixes. In my previous post, I described how the problem of our collective health crisis isn’t being resolved, it’s being milked for profit by faux “solutions” that don’t actually resolve the problem, they keep it on simmer because this is the most profitable arrangement for those providing the illusory “solution.”

I have endeavored to explain why extreme inequality will undo not just democracy, it will undo the entire social order and the economy as well. We currently live in a fantasy world in which finance and market forces operate with impunity, as the focus is on profits and “growth.”

That finance and market forces have profound social consequences is ignored. This reality has been explored since the 1800s, by critics ranging from Emerson to Marx (“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned”) to modern critics such as Christopher Lasch, author of The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1995) and more recently, by Jeffrey L. Degner in his new book Inflation and the Family: Monetary Policy’s Impact on Household Life, which is described in The Social Costs Of Inflation (Quoth the Raven, via Rich W.)

That inequality of wealth, income and opportunity has reached dangerous extremes in America has been starkly visible since the save-the-fraudsters response to the 2008-09 Financial Fraud Meltdown (a.k.a. the Global Financial Crisis). In the aftermath, a number of incisive essays were published by journals left, right and center on the urgent need to address soaring inequality.

These three essays from 2011-2013 cover the many systemic dynamics of this problem: I cannot stress strongly enough that neither the left nor the right have mounted a meaningful response, as this is not an issue that boils down to a strictly partisan / political or economic problem–it encompasses the entirety of the status quo system: culture, society, economy and the political/policy sphere.

This not-left-or-right nature confuses many, who automatically seek to compartmentalize the problem and proposed solutions as left or right. Inequality cannot be constrained to stale political boundaries if we are to understand it as a problem that needs real resolutions, not superficial fake fixes. This is perhaps best exemplified by Christopher Lasch, whose nuanced work cannot be pigeonholed as right or left.

His savaging of the status quo economy’s dismantling of the family can be interpreted as conservative, while Lasch’s appreciation of Marx’s critique can be labeled progressive. Both labels are misleading, as Lasch’s work cannot be understood within the narrow confines of conventional knee-jerk us-them thinking.

This applies to all thoughtful discussions of soaring inequality. Mike Lofgren’s essay in the August 2012 issue of The American Conservative magazine is a brilliant summary of just how far we’ve fallen: Revolt of the Rich: Our financial elites are the new secessionists:

“It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: ‘The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens’.”

“Lasch held that the elites–by which he meant not just the super-wealthy but also their managerial coat holders and professional apologists–were undermining the country’s promise as a constitutional republic with their prehensile greed, their asocial cultural values, and their absence of civic responsibility. Lasch wrote that in 1995. Now, almost two decades later, the super-rich have achieved escape velocity from the gravitational pull of the very society they rule over. They have seceded from America.”

Jerry Z. Muller, Professor of History at the Catholic University of America, wrote a dispassionate, thorough essay on the many structural sources of inequality in 2013: Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong (April 2013)

(In 2012): “The central focus of the left today is on increasing government taxing and spending, primarily to reverse the growing stratification of society, whereas the central focus of the right is on decreasing taxing and spending, primarily to ensure economic dynamism. Each side minimizes the concerns of the other, and each seems to believe that its desired policies are sufficient to ensure prosperity and social stability. Both are wrong.

Inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the postindustrial capitalist world. But despite what many on the left think, this is not the result of politics, nor is politics likely to reverse it, for the problem is more deeply rooted and intractable than generally recognized. Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it–because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.

Despite what many on the right think, however, this is a problem for everybody, not just those who are doing poorly or those who are ideologically committed to egalitarianism–because if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large.”

George Packer unpacked the sources of decay that push inequality to extremes in his comprehensive December 2011 essay The Broken Contract: Inequality and American Decline:

“Inequality hardens society into a class system, imprisoning people in the circumstances of their birth–a rebuke to the very idea of The American Dream.”

(in 2012:) “The same ailments were on full display in Washington this past summer, during the debt-ceiling debacle: ideological rigidity bordering on fanaticism, an indifference to facts, an inability to think beyond the short term, the dissolution of national interest into partisan advantage.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Inequality Then and Now: Now It’s Too Late appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Elite Who Governs Us

Who Rules America: Power Elite Analysis, the Deep State, and American History

The Warren Commission: A Rothbardian Analysis

A pioneer historical examination of the composition of the Warren Commission by James Dunlap, (an old colleague of mine) using the power elite analysis framework created by the late world acclaimed economist/historian Murray N. Rothbard.

Yankees vs. Cowboys: Rothbardian Elite Theory on Watergate

The Yankee and Cowboy War, by Carl Oglesby

The late Murray N. Rothbard, was particularly enamored with this pioneering book, remarking:

Carl Oglesby’s new book is not only exciting and thoroughly researched, it presents the only analytic framework — originated by himself — which makes sense of the violent events of the last decade and a half our recent political history, and puts them all into a coherent framework: the Yankee vs. Cowboy analysis.

The important question looms: why is it that Oglesby has been alone in coming up with this framework? I think the answer is that the methodologies of other writers and researchers have led them astray: the free-market economists who are critical of government actions never bother to ask who benefitted from those actions and who were likely to be responsible for them; the Marxists are anxious to indict an abstract, mythical and unified ‘capitalist class’ for all evils of government, and believe that detailed research into concrete divisions and conflicts among power elites detract from such an indictment; those sociologists who have engaged in concrete power elite analysis have only examined structures (who owns corporation X, who belongs to what social club?) rather than the dynamics of concrete historical events; the one writer who has treated Yankees and Cowboys has been so blinded by particular hostility to the Cowboys that he virtually includes everyone living in the Sunbelt as part of a vast Cowboy conspiracy; and the various doughty investigators and reporters of Dallas or Watergate have struck to surface events because they lacked the overall coherent framework.

Carl Oglesby has surmounted all of these defects, and has therefore been able to make a giant breakthrough in explaining our recent history.

The post JFK Assassination and Watergate: A Rothbardian Power Elite Analysis appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

“If you keep talking about the so-called social issues….they (Ben Shapiro and those like him) get quickly to economics, to usury, to lending money at interest…There are pay day loans in this country that are 600% interest annually. Poor people are taking them. It is called debt slavery…and it was one of the observations Charlie Kirk was making on a daily basis before he was assassinated which is interesting … and it is that kids are buying food on credit.” – Tucker Carlson 

Tucker’s insights are compelling in this episode, and he also interviews Ana Kasparian. 

See here.

The post Tucker Carlson on Usury, 2nd Rate Podcaster Mark Levin, and More appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner: 

Lew,

Shooting expert and researcher Chris Martenson and his team conducted experiments proving Charlie Kirk was not killed by a 30-06 bullet as claimed by the FBI nor could his neck have stopped such a round as claimed by TPUSA COO Andrew Kolvet. Martenson also presented an audio study concluding a supersonic round from a high powered rifle was fired. Autopsy results and evidence of any bullets used in the assassination are still not available for examination. 

See here.

The post Experiments Show Charlie Kirk Was Not Hit with a 30-06 Bullet as FBI Claims appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

The post Parents Were Right–Autism Triggered by Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.

A very long time ago, the beautiful ex-wife of a major Hollywood star mistook me for my father, a rich shipowner and industrialist. I was just out of school, 20 years old and without a penny to my name. But I was soon rich and able to afford her after borrowing thousands of dollars from a shylock who charged 100 percent interest. After I failed to pay him back, the creep somehow managed to get through to my father, informing him of my debt while telling him that it would be a pity to spoil his son’s looks so early in life. Daddy paid and sent me to the Sudan as punishment. Khartoum back then turned out to be as punishing as being invited by Lily James or Keira Knightley to spend the night. The place was straight out of a Hollywood film, with a grand hotel facing the presidential palace, an outdoor nightclub called Gordon’s, a friendly populace with hundreds of staff eager to serve all our needs, and, oh yes, it almost slipped my mind: the largest textile factory in Africa employing 5,000 who worked in air-conditioned comfort, owned by my father. General President Abboud of the Sudan visited regularly, and my job was to discreetly gift him with various currencies. Khartoum turned out to be heaven on earth, and I even won the Khartoum open tennis tournament in 1961. The evenings were straight out of Casablanca. I had my regular table at Gordon’s, and next to me were people like Alfried Krupp, the German industrialist lobbying to build a bridge from Khartoum north to Omdurman, with tennis great Gottfried von Cramm buttering up the locals. One evening, the visiting Reinaldo Herrera senior and Winston Guest, on their way to a safari, were surprised to find me in deep Africa.

Then, suddenly, it all went to hell. Some bum who claimed to be a direct descendant of the Mahdi, the one who killed General Gordon in the siege of Khartoum some hundred years before, overthrew General President Abboud and was about to take little Taki hostage before the little one escaped to Egypt via boat up the Nile. Many years later, on my way to Kenya for a photographic safari—I do not shoot animals—I stopped in Khartoum and drove to the factory. It was a burned-out shell. The once-prosperous third-largest country in Africa soon followed suit.

“One needs anthropological detachment to even contemplate the recent horrors in Africa.”

One needs anthropological detachment to even contemplate the recent horrors in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been slaughtered in the Sudan and in Nigeria, in the latter the Christians being the victims. The Rapid Support Forces in the Sudan, inheritors of the murderous Janjaweed who killed hundreds of thousands back in the early 2000s, have murdered about the same number twenty years later. Their depravity includes thousands upon thousands of children who have died of starvation. The heaps of corpses in the Sudan could be photographed from space, yet we in the West worry about racism in our universities. I did not know back then, or even at present, that human beings could act in such monstrous ways. The Sudan was always Christian in the south and Muslim in the north, and I leave it up to you to decide which side is killing which. Not to be left behind, Nigeria’s Muslims are murdering Christians while the Pope and British King Charles agree that racism is our biggest threat.

How did all this come about? Don’t ask the usual suspects like some lefty journalist because they’ll tell you it was our fault, imperialism and all that. My father provided jobs and good salaries. The Mahdi who drove us out provided death, hunger, and misery. Of course, British foreign policy going back to the 19th century was wrong. Arab tribal societies with hereditary rulers worked best for Arabs.

The same goes for African societies. They worked better when they were strictly tribal—that is, before they were given Western exteriors and were burdened with a multiethnic population. According to Aristotle, a functioning society works best when those who rule alternate in power with those who are ruled. This is why tribal societies worked in Africa until the Brits, the French, and the awful Belgians came along. People revolt and kill their fellow man when a form of rule does not fit the customs and disposition of a people. The Germans and the Dutch in southern Africa are still popular because they left the tribes to themselves. Namibia is a haven compared with the rest of the continent.

So the next time some wise jerk complains about the killings, tell him they were because of people like him who tried to change tribes and tribal customs by civilizing them. My dad offered them jobs, not civics lessons in democracy, equality, and feminism.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Tribal Knowledge appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thierry Meyssan had already drawn his readers’ attention to the bias of the United Nations Secretariat. Here, he returns to the controversy between Germany, France, and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, Iran, and China on the other, concerning the coherence of international law. This is not a matter of technical legal questions, but rather of either the superiority of the Western perspective or the hierarchy of international norms.

While the world’s attention is focused on war zones, it remains oblivious to what is happening at the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency: Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have developed an aberrant legal argument claiming they have the right to reinstate the sanctions imposed on Iran by Resolution 1737 (December 23, 2006), sanctions that were subsequently repealed by Resolution 2231 (July 20, 2015). Even though Russia and China have repeatedly stated that only the Security Council has the authority to impose sanctions, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom persist in claiming this right, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres has aligned himself with their position.

Let’s recall the context of this affair: in 1972, French President Georges Pompidou took the initiative to create an international company for uranium enrichment to supply future nuclear power plants. This was Eurodif, with the participation (in addition to France) of Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, soon joined by Spain and Sweden.
In 1974, French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac pledged to deliver five Franco-American nuclear power plants to the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In this context, he brought Iran into Eurodif’s capital. But France refused to honor its commitments when the Shah fled and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini succeeded him. The dispute was settled in 1988 by Jacques Chirac, who had become President of the French Republic.

Beyond the situation into which the claims of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have plunged the Iranian people, this controversy harks back to the methods of the former colonial powers. We must bear in mind that the main victim of the First World War was neither France (10.5% of the population), nor Germany (9.8%), nor Austria-Hungary (9.5%), but Iran (25 to 30%). Not that Iran was a major theater of war, but because the British decided to starve its population to halt the Soviet advance. They thus caused the deaths of 6 to 8 million people  [ 1 ] . This way of doing things, which characterized British colonialism particularly in India and China, is perpetuated with the “unilateral coercive measures” of the West, which they abusively call “sanctions”, as if they had been decided after an adversarial debate before the Security Council.

Relations between Iran and Western Europeans deteriorated severely when, in 2005, Revolutionary Guard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of the Islamic Republic: he had the ambition to master nuclear fusion which would have allowed him to free developing states from their energy dependence.

We must remember Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2011 statements: “The first thing to do is to prevent them [militant Islamic regimes] from obtaining nuclear weapons. That is our first mission, and the second is to find a substitute for oil.”  [ 2 ] This way of speaking reflects the Western interpretation of Iran’s efforts to train not just a few scientists, but an entire generation of nuclear technicians and scientists. From the outset, Westerners viewed Iranian nuclear know-how both as preparation for acquiring “the” bomb and, far more seriously, as a Third World revolution against Western technological superiority.

Let us return to the approach of Germany, France and the United Kingdom: on August 28, 2025, Johann Wadephul, Jean-Noël Barrot and David Lammy, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that, in violation of Annex 1 of the JCPOA, since 2019, “Iran has, among other things, exceeded the limits to which it freely committed itself on enriched uranium, heavy water and centrifuges; has ceased to allow the IAEA to conduct verification and monitoring activities of the JCPOA; and has abandoned the implementation and ratification of the Additional Protocol to its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement”  [ 3 ] .

In response, on the same day, Sergey Lavrov, Seyed Abbas Araghchi and Wang Yi, the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and China, wrote to all member states of the United Nations General Assembly  [ 4 ] . They reminded them of the hierarchy of norms: the JCPOA (July 14, 2015) is subordinate to Security Council resolution 2231 (July 20, 2015).

They also observed that after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and violated its commitments, Iran, like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, took measures contrary to the treaty, but did not challenge Resolution 2231. Therefore, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are not entitled to invoke the JCPOA, which they themselves do not respect, to demand sanctions against Iran.

They note that Germany, France, and the United Kingdom expressed, in January 2020, their commitment to the JCPOA  [ 5 ] and their regret that Iran had resumed uranium enrichment to 60% in response to the US withdrawal from and violation of commitments, as well as the Pentagon’s assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. However, they did not convene the dispute resolution mechanism (Joint Commission) provided for in the JCPOA. Consequently, contrary to their claims, Berlin, Paris, and London did not do everything in their power to resolve the conflict and—even without considering the aforementioned hierarchy of norms—are therefore not authorized to reinstate the previous sanctions.

This controversy has continued to escalate since then, culminating in the Security Council meetings of September 19 and 26, 2025. However, the United Nations communications service published two false reports of these meetings, falsely claiming that “the Security Council endorsed the return of UN sanctions against Iran”  [ 6 ] . Subsequently, the Secretary-General issued a misleading note verbale ordering the reinstatement of these sanctions  [ 7 ] .

However, things did not end there. Russia first sent a letter to António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, to remind him of his obligations  [ 8 ] . Then, along with China and Iran, it addressed Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). All three wrote to him, not citing Security Council Resolution 2231, but the resolution adopted by the Agency’s Board of Governors on December 15, 2015  [ 9 ] . Their reasoning remains the same: there is a hierarchy of norms that recognizes the supremacy of Security Council resolutions over treaties, even multilateral ones. Moreover, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, “which have themselves violated the commitments they made under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and resolution 2231 (2015), and which have not exhausted the procedures established within the framework of the dispute settlement mechanism, have no legitimacy to invoke its provisions.” In so doing, they are notifying Rafael Grossi that all measures provided for by resolution 2231 have been completed since October 18, 2025. “This termination ends the obligation on the IAEA Director General to report on the verification and monitoring activities carried out under this resolution.”

Make no mistake: if these three states persist in their absurd interpretation of Resolution 2231 and attempt to impose it on the IAEA, they will be the ones jeopardizing its very survival. In June, Rafael Grossi risked destroying it by allowing himself to be misled by an artificial intelligence that contradicted the observations of his inspectors. He had endorsed the idea that Iran was on the verge of developing an atomic bomb, justifying the “12-Day War,” before retracting his statement  [ 10 ] .

The author of this article was an advisor to President Ahmadinejad.

—

[ 1 ]  The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran, 1917-1919 , Mohammad Gholi Majd, University Press of America (2013).

[ 2 ]  “  A World View Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu  ”, Channel 2, YouTube , 2011.

[ 3 ]  “ Letter from Jean-Noël Barrot, David Lammy and Johann Wadephul stating that Iran is not respecting its commitments to the JCPoA ”, by David Lammy, Jean-Noël Barrot, Johann Wadephul, Voltaire Network , August 28, 2025.

[ 4 ]  “  Letter from Wang Yi, Seyed Abbas Araghchi and Sergey Lavrov on the disruption of the JCPOA  ”, by Sergey Lavrov, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Wang Yi, Voltaire Network , August 28, 2025.

[ 5 ]  “  Joint statement by France, Germany and the United Kingdom regarding Iran  ”, Voltaire Network , January 12, 2020.

[ 6 ]  “  Security Council opposes continued easing of UN sanctions against Iran  ” and “  Iran nuclear: Security Council endorses return to UN sanctions against Iran by rejecting extension of Resolution 2231 of 2015  ”, United Nations.

[ 7 ]  ”  The Secretary-General reinstates sanctions against Iran  “, UN (Secretariat-General), Voltaire Network , September 27, 2025.

[ 8 ]  “  Russia asks UN to withdraw sanctions against Iran taken in violation of Security Council decisions  ”, by Vassily Nebenzia, Voltaire Network , September 29, 2025.

[ 9 ]  “  Letter from China, Iran and Russia to the IAEA  ”, Voltaire Network , October 30, 2025.

[ 10 ]  “  Behind the ‘12 Days’ War’  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, July 1, 2025.

The post What Game Are Germany, France and the United Kingdom Playing at the UN and the IAEA? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his vitally important article on this issue,1 Karl Hess properly refers to the genuine libertarian movement as a “revolutionary” movement. This raises the point that very few Americans understand the true meaning of the word “revolution.”

Most people, when they hear the world “revolution,” think immediately and only of direct acts of physical confrontation with the State: raising barricades in the streets, battling a cop, storming the Bastille or other government buildings. But this is only one small part of revolution. Revolution is a mighty, complex, long-run process, a complicated movement with many vital parts and functions. It is the pamphleteer writing in his study, it is the journalist, the political club, the agitator, the organizer, the campus activist, the theoretician, the philanthropist. It is all this and much more. Each person and group has its part to play in this great complex movement.

Let us take, for example, the major model for Libertarians in our time: the great classical-liberal, or better, “classical radical,” revolutionary movement of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. These our ancestors created a vast, sprawling, and brilliant revolutionary movement not only in the United States but also throughout the Western world that lasted for several centuries. This was the movement largely responsible for radically changing history, for almost destroying history as it was previously known to man. For before these centuries, the history of man, with one or two luminous exceptions, was a dark and gory record of tyranny and despotism; a record of various absolute States and monarchs crushing and exploiting their underlying populations, largely peasants, who lived a brief and brutish life at bare subsistence, devoid of hope or promise. It was classical liberalism and radicalism that brought to the mass of people that hope and promise, and which launched the great process of fulfillment. All that man has achieved today, in progress, in hope, in living standards, we can attribute to that revolutionary movement, to that “revolution.” This great revolution was our fathers’; it is now our task to complete its unfinished promise.

This classical revolutionary movement was made up of many parts. It was the libertarian theorists and ideologists, the men who created and wove the strands of libertarian theory and principle: the La Boeties, the Levellers in seventeenth-century England, the eighteenth-century radicals, the philosophes, the physiocrats, the English radicals, the Patrick Henrys, and Tom Paines of the American Revolution; the James Mills and Cobdens of nineteenth-century England, the Jacksonians and abolitionists and Thoreaus in America, the Bastiats and Molinaris in France. The vital scholarly work of Caroline Robbins and Bernard Bailyn, for example, has demonstrated the continuity of libertarian classical-radical ideas and movements, from the seventeenth-century English revolutionaries down through the American Revolution a century and a half later.

Theories blended into activist movements, rising movements calling for individual liberty, a free-market economy, the overthrow of feudalism and mercantilist statism, an end to theocracy and war and their replacement by freedom and international peace. Once in a while, these movements erupted into violent “revolutions” that brought giant steps in the direction of liberty: the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution.2 The result was enormous strides for freedom and the prosperity unleashed by the consequent Industrial Revolution. The barricades, while important, were just one small part of this great process. Socialism is neither genuinely radical nor truly revolutionary. Socialism is a reactionary reversion, a self-contradictory attempt to achieve classical radical ends: liberty, progress, the withering away or abolition of the State, by using old-fashioned statist and Tory means: collectivism and State control. Socialism is a New Toryism doomed to rapid failure whenever it is tried, a failure demonstrated by the collapse of central planning in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. Only libertarianism is truly radical. Only we can complete the unfinished revolution of our great forebears, the bringing of the world from the realm of despotism into the realm of freedom. Only we can replace the governance of men by the administration of things.

[This article originally appeared in The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 1 No. 7 (July 1, 1969).]

—

1 See Karl Hess, “What the Movement Needs,” The Libertarian Forum (July 1, 1969).

2 Barrington Moore, Jr., has shown the intimate connection between these violent revolutions and the freedoms that the Western world has been able to take from the State.

The post The Meaning of Revolution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Abstract:
The contemporary fascination with a so-called “Bitcoin Standard” rests on the same utopian fantasy that once sustained the Gold Standard—that monetary scarcity can restrain political excess. This essay dismantles that illusion. Through historical analysis of the American experience from 1921 to 1971, and a critical exploration of modern fiscal theory, it argues that the problem of government overspending lies not in the nature of money, but in the nature of governance itself. States do not “print” in the naïve sense of creating currency without backing; they borrow, they bond, and they spend the unearned wealth of future generations. Whether denominated in gold, fiat, or digital tokens, the principle remains: borrowing is justified only when it produces tangible, growth-generating returns. Infrastructure investment, by expanding productive capacity, meets that criterion. Ideological boondoggles, designed for political gratification rather than economic yield, do not. A Bitcoin-backed regime would not neutralise state debt—it would merely gild it with cryptographic rhetoric before the inevitable default.

Thesis Statement:
A Bitcoin Standard would neither prevent deficit spending nor enforce fiscal discipline. It would replicate the structural failures of the Gold Standard, revealing once again that monetary systems cannot cure political irresponsibility. Sound economics arises from productive investment, not ideological austerity or speculative scarcity.

Section I — The Fetish of the Standard

Civilisations invent standards when they lose faith in themselves. The standard is the moral prosthetic of a bankrupt culture, a totem erected in the ruins of trust. When men no longer believe in the integrity of their institutions, they seek refuge in metal or code, mistaking mechanical certainty for virtue. The gold standard, and now the fantasy of a Bitcoin standard, both emerge from the same intellectual poverty — the hope that scarcity can substitute for discipline.

The nineteenth century worshipped gold as the embodiment of order. Its adherents believed that tethering money to a finite metal would chain the ambitions of politicians and the appetites of mobs. The faith was theological: gold was immutable, incorruptible, and therefore, by extension, moral. Yet history is unkind to those who mistake symbols for systems. Every empire that swore fidelity to its metallic god quietly betrayed it when power demanded flexibility. The standard remained in rhetoric long after it had been broken in practice. When the ledger conflicted with the sword, the sword always won.

The modern cult of Bitcoin repeats the same catechism, only now in binary form. Instead of divine metal, there is divine mathematics. Instead of vaults, ledgers. Instead of priests, programmers. The narrative is identical: scarcity will purify the system; code will banish corruption. Yet scarcity does not civilise—it merely constrains. And code, like law, is only as incorruptible as the people who execute it. To believe otherwise is to mistake cryptography for character.

The fetish of the standard endures because it absolves responsibility. It allows men to imagine that moral failure can be corrected by mechanism. A politician can promise rectitude without reform; an economist can preach restraint without courage. Both can appeal to an external order to justify their weakness. The standard becomes a moral surrogate, an instrument of denial wrapped in the language of discipline.

Under the gold standard, nations inflated through debt while denouncing inflation in speech. The mechanism of deceit was simple: borrow abroad, spend domestically, and swear that redemption remained sacred—until it wasn’t. Gold never failed them; they failed gold. The same dynamic will haunt any Bitcoin-based regime. Governments will borrow against future Bitcoin flows, issue bonds indexed to digital reserves, and construct a labyrinth of derivatives to simulate liquidity. When reality intrudes, they will call it “temporary suspension,” just as Nixon did in 1971. And another generation will learn that scarcity without integrity is merely a slower road to default.

The moral allure of the standard lies in its false promise of objectivity. It whispers that numbers can tame men, that mathematics can impose virtue on vice. But economics is not a physics of atoms; it is a politics of appetites. The state does not violate standards because they are weak—it violates them because survival demands it. A fixed supply cannot withstand a variable will.

Thus the Bitcoin standard is not revolutionary; it is recursive. It is the latest costume of an old delusion: that systems, once made rigid, will make men righteous. The truth is less elegant and infinitely harder—discipline is not a consequence of scarcity; it is a product of moral and intellectual strength. Gold failed to bestow it. Bitcoin will too.

Section II — The Mechanics of Debt: Printing Without Presses

The image of governments “printing money” is a rhetorical ghost that refuses to die. It conjures visions of reckless bureaucrats flooding the economy with worthless paper, spinning inflation from ink. The truth, however, is far more subtle—and far more insidious. Modern states do not print; they borrow. They transform promises into liquidity, pledging the future to sustain the present. Debt, not the printing press, is the engine of contemporary money creation.

When a government announces new spending, it does not conjure cash from the ether. It issues bonds. Those bonds are bought by institutions, banks, pension funds, and increasingly by the central bank itself. Each bond is a certificate of faith—faith that tomorrow’s taxpayers will honour yesterday’s ambitions. The state thus becomes a conduit for temporal arbitrage: it spends today what it claims it will earn tomorrow. This sleight of hand is the modern alchemy of finance. And like all alchemy, it is sustained by belief.

Central banks operationalise this ritual. When they “expand the money supply,” they are not pushing buttons to mint coins; they are buying government debt, placing those bonds on their balance sheets in exchange for new reserves. These reserves, in turn, ripple through commercial banks as lending capacity, multiplying into credit, investment, and speculation. The entire system rests on the assumption that growth will outpace obligation—that the future will be richer than the past, and thus the debt can be serviced. It is not money that sustains the system, but confidence.

Even under a Bitcoin standard, this process would persist. A government could peg its currency to Bitcoin, claim a fixed supply, and yet continue to issue bonds denominated in Bitcoin units. Investors, lured by yield, would still lend. Banks would still leverage deposits into layered credit instruments. The system would still inflate—not by printing, but by promising. Monetary purity cannot abolish temporal preference. A digital reserve merely changes the vocabulary of deceit.

This is why the inflation debate so often misfires. Inflation is not the consequence of “money printing” but of systemic borrowing against productivity that does not yet exist. When the borrowed funds build roads, energy networks, and productive infrastructure, they seed future returns capable of repaying the debt. When they finance consumption, political patronage, or subsidies that generate no growth, they cannibalise the very economy that must redeem them. Inflation, then, is not a monetary failure—it is a moral one. It is the symptom of a civilisation that spends not to build but to appease.

During the so-called sound-money eras—the gold standard, Bretton Woods, even the early years of fiat—the same mechanism prevailed. The United States financed wars, public works, and global expansion through debt. Gold was the decorative myth, the psychological anchor. The dollar’s credibility rested not on the contents of Fort Knox but on the productivity of the American economy. When that productivity faltered and the liabilities grew intolerable, the peg dissolved. The paper endured because the myth was replaced by another: that fiat itself could embody trust.

Bitcoin’s advocates imagine that immutable code will succeed where gold failed. But mathematics cannot restrain politics. The government that cannot borrow will tax; the one that cannot tax will seize. Power finds its liquidity. Whether through treasury bonds, digital instruments, or backdoor derivatives, the machinery of credit will persist because the machinery of ambition never ceases. To think otherwise is to confuse the protocol for the polity.

The phrase “printing money” survives because it flatters indignation. It gives the illusion that corruption lies in the mechanism, not the motive. Yet the printing press is a relic; the bond auction is the true altar of excess. Nations collapse not because they print too much, but because they promise too much—and lack the courage to stop. Bitcoin will not change this arithmetic. Scarcity cannot sanctify deceit.

Section III — Keynes and the Paradox of Productive Deficit

Few economic thinkers have been more misunderstood than John Maynard Keynes. To his disciples, he became the prophet of spending; to his enemies, the architect of moral decay. Both readings are caricatures. Keynes never preached excess for its own sake. His argument was simple and devastating: when private demand collapses, the state must spend—not to indulge consumption, but to sustain the machinery of production until confidence returns. His doctrine was one of temporary intervention, not permanent dependency.

At its core, Keynesianism was an argument about investment. Deficit spending was justified only when it built the conditions for future surplus. The concept of “the multiplier” was not a licence for profligacy; it was an accounting of return. Each pound borrowed was to yield more than a pound in output, through the restoration of employment and the expansion of productive capacity. The end was growth, not indulgence. The error of later governments was to mistake this emergency medicine for a diet.

The post-war consensus distorted Keynes into a bureaucratic idol. Politicians found in his name a rationalisation for perpetual deficit—a policy of pleasure without pain, borrowing without consequence. They ignored the distinction between capital expenditure and current expenditure. Building a bridge was productive: it connected markets, accelerated trade, and multiplied returns. Expanding welfare without reform was parasitic: it consumed output without creating new value. One increased the capacity of the economy to repay its debts; the other merely redistributed the burden.

Keynes’s actual warning was moral, not mathematical. He wrote that “the boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” His philosophy depended on reciprocity—the willingness of governments to save in prosperity what they spent in crisis. But the modern state, addicted to electoral gratification, inverted the principle. Spending became the norm, restraint the anomaly. Every administration promised growth through generosity, not through discipline. Deficit became destiny.

Under such conditions, the deficit ceases to be Keynesian and becomes decadent. When money is borrowed to consume rather than to create, debt no longer serves the economy—it devours it. The productive deficit transforms into the unproductive one: the infrastructure of tomorrow is replaced by the appeasement of today. Subsidised idleness masquerades as compassion; temporary stimulus becomes permanent entitlement. The ledger swells, while output stagnates.

This degeneration is not merely fiscal—it is philosophical. It reveals the abandonment of the causal relationship between effort and reward. A society that borrows for comfort rather than construction loses the moral logic of credit itself. The promise to repay is credible only when what is built yields more than what is spent. Once the purpose of debt becomes political tranquillity, the bond market becomes a mirror of decay.

This distinction—between debt that seeds growth and debt that smothers it—remains the fulcrum of economic integrity. Infrastructure spending, when directed toward projects that unlock productivity, is not wasteful; it is the temporal bridge between potential and performance. A rail network, a power grid, a port—these are engines of compounding utility. They transform labour into leverage. Their debt is repaid not through taxation, but through prosperity.

The opposite holds for ideological projects. Bureaucratic make-work, social redistribution without reform, and vanity subsidies erode both fiscal balance and moral coherence. They feed dependency under the banner of equality, and debt under the illusion of progress. The political left, intoxicated by compassion, calls this justice. The right, terrified of consequence, dares not oppose it. The result is bipartisan insolvency.

Thus, the paradox of productive deficit: debt, used rightly, is civilisation’s accelerator; used wrongly, its executioner. Keynes understood this. His intellectual heirs did not. They took the language of growth and filled it with sentiment. They mistook liquidity for wealth, redistribution for recovery, and permanence for stability. The state became a consumer of capital rather than its steward.

A Bitcoin or gold-backed economy would not change this pattern. It would merely compress the timeline of failure. When the government borrows under a hard standard, the limits appear sooner, but the psychology remains identical. The moral question is not what backs the currency, but what justifies the debt. The ledger can be honest only when purpose is.

Keynes’s original sin was not in his theory but in his followers. He believed in intervention; they believed in indulgence. He sought to preserve capitalism; they used him to dilute it. A century later, his ghost haunts every treasury and parliament that borrows for applause. The paradox endures: a system designed to prevent collapse became the blueprint for perpetual decline.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Governments Will Always Borrow Against the Future appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this age of the unrelenting back and forth of social media, where people lob insults and accusations like mortars, it is hard to find genuine charitable rebuttals to another person’s work. This article will endeavor, with charity, to rebut the article “Can Fallen Priests Be Restored to Ministry? Yes—Here’s How” recently penned by Mr. Matt Robinson. Until reading his article, Mr. Robinson and his company, The Shepherd Within, were unknown to me. I applaud his efforts, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. If you haven’t done so already, I encourage you to read Mr. Robinson’s article first, then return and read this rebuttal.

Let me start with our principal agreement: the relationship between a bishop and priest is “critical to a flourishing priesthood, and a flourishing priesthood is critical to a flourishing Church.” This is certainly true! However, throughout his article, Mr. Robinson implies that there are only two reasons why a priest is out of ministry. First, for having committed a serious crime such as abuse of minors. He notes, and I agree, that this group is a small percentage, and I will say that some credit needs to be given to the exposure of the abuse and steps taken to remedy it in the last 25 years.

Second, priests are removed from ministry because they have “fallen into a serious sin, crisis, addiction, and the like…issues that are not permanently disqualifying from public ministry.” This group is larger and varies in size depending on the diocese and the health of the presbyterate. But there is a third group that Mr. Robinson fails to mention. This third group has come to be called “cancelled priests,” and I have dedicated the better part of the last several years to helping this group.

The term “cancelled priest” is confusing to some because, at face value, it seems to include priests who belong to one or the other of the two groups identified by Mr. Robinson. Despite this, I remain convinced that the word “cancelled” remains the best term to use when referring to faithful priests who have been unjustly sidelined by their bishop. Why? Because the term properly describes how these priests have been treated.

“Cancelled priests” are a species of the cancel culture of our day; a culture which attacks people who speak the truth, even when that truth offends the gatekeepers of political correctness. It may be said that this third group is the 800-pound gorilla in the room; and, as such, “cancelled priests” are neither identified by nor addressed in Mr. Robinson’s article.

In his article, Mr. Robinson states that “according to The Catholic Project, 82% of priests regularly fear false accusation.” Having spoken to cancelled priests all over the country and the world, I would say this number is accurate, if not low. He notes that many bishops do not agree with this number. But this should not surprise us, since most bishops do not have a father-son relationship with their priests. Rather, the vast majority of bishops see their priests as liabilities, lawsuits waiting to happen, and they treat their priests accordingly.

How do I know this? Because this is the consistent testimony of myriad priests who have sought help. I first noticed this as a pattern in how the priests in my diocese were treated; but I later discovered the same pattern around the country. In fact, the consistency of the firsthand reports that I received from many priests led me to believe that the bishops in the United States of America were all playing from the same playbook.

In times past, before the Boston scandal erupted and the Dallas Charter of the USCCB, a bishop would allow a priest with whom he did not get along to find work outside of his diocese or would send him to an out-of-the-way part of the diocese. In those days, the priest would retain his faculties and a sense of dignity.

Today, almost every diocese has at least a few “cancelled” priests—or if you prefer, “unprofitable servants.” While some priests today may be given the option to find work or (indefinite) study somewhere, many bishops are weaponizing the Dallas Charter, Canon Law, and anything else they can find, to keep priests out of ministry. And the bishops are doing all this under the cover of the quarter-century-old mantra: “If the priest is removed from ministry he must have done something wrong to warrant it.”

If a name were to be given to the bishops’ anti-priest playbook, it would be “The Liability Ledger.” Whether for fear of being accused of protecting predators or just from sheer vindictiveness against a spiritual son, many bishops are using the same plays to remove and humiliate priests.

Here’s how the play typically runs: the bishop calls the priest in for meeting, a meeting for which no reason is given and for which the agenda is unstated. In attendance will be the bishop, or one of his vicars, the diocesan attorney, and, perhaps, a canonist representing the diocese. (N.B. Never attend a meeting where the other side has counsel present and you do not.)

During the meeting, a vague accusation or two will be made or a psychological or spiritual concern will be mentioned. A series of vague questions will follow. While details remain obscure, the bishop and his entourage will generously employ many adjectives: “not pastoral,” “arrogant,” “rigid,” “uncaring,” etc. After that, a psychological evaluation will be encouraged, usually at St. Luke’s in Washington, D.C., or St. John Vianney’s in Pennsylvania, or some other such place. Assurances will be flowing that if the evaluation goes well, everything will be fine.

The team at the institution will be given documents from the diocese to which the priest is not privy, and the priest will be required to give written permission granting access to anyone the bishop deems worthy to see the findings of the evaluation. After the evaluation, an oral and a written report will follow. Then, the priest will be called back in to the chancery and, more often than not, told that he is in need of “in-patient therapy.”

This consists of several months of living at one of these institutes. Cost to the diocese: $800-$1000 a day over several months. If the priest is a pastor, he will be asked to resign his parish. (Fathers, if asked to resign, do not comply. A pastor loses numerous rights in Canon Law if he resigns his office; and the bishop cannot, under obedience, compel a pastor to resign. And, if the bishop attempts to compel your resignation, you have the right of appeal to Rome.)

Pastor or not, the priest will be asked to vacate his residence. If he exercises his canonical right to refuse to go to the institution, the priest will be placed in a residence outside of his parish. Sometimes the bishop will let him live with family.

Whether the priest goes to the institution or not, the parish will be told a vague reason for his removal, asking for prayers. And, in the current climate, this is a death sentence for the priest’s good name, for the first thing that goes through peoples’ minds is that the priest did something horrible.

Yes, the priest can submit an Appeal to hierarchical recourse to Rome, but this can take years. And, if the priest eventually wins his appeal, his reinstatement by the bishop is not guaranteed. In fact, if the priests wins his appeal, many bishops will simply hide behind the line “You are uninsurable.” Meaning, the diocesan insurance company will not allow them to take the priest back into ministry.

Read the Whole Article

The post Fathers and Sons: The Problem of Cancelled Priests appeared first on LewRockwell.

“I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” ~ Étienne de La Boétie, “On Voluntary Servitude,” Anno Domini 1552

From time to time people ask me what might work well as far as making a better future for themselves and their descendants. Oftentimes these conversations take place in the context of talk of politics.

It is not possible to fix the problems caused by the excesses of politics through the addition of more politics. I’ve said that a great many times. My friend Bill Buppert says it in a more memorable turn of phrase, “You can’t end cannibalism by eating cannibals.”

Friends, I know what you want. You want to be invulnerable, especially to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Specifically you’d rather not suffer from the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the law’s delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, if you like the bard’s play about the Danish prince Hamlet. Perhaps you prefer the language of the committee that drafted the Declaration of 1776? A long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object that evinces a design to reduce you under absolute despotism? Yes, you’d rather not suffer those, would you.

You want to be invisible in that you prefer to be left alone. You don’t want “the Man” coming around to bother you, to ransack your home, civil asset forfeiture your property, murder your children, commit outrageous acts of violence on your family dog, rape anyone in sight, as those in power often have their minions do. Ayn Rand was convinced that to start a whole new civilisation one would need a special electromagnetic shield that would disguise an entire Rocky Mountain valley (Galt’s Gulch, in particular) from the view of aeroplanes. Freeman Dyson pointed out that there is really no place on Earth where a group of people could go to be isolated from the rest of society, no matter how clever they are.

You want to be invincible. When the evil militarised constabulary of Apache county, Arizona came to Milton William Cooper’s home in AD 2001 they murdered him. He had already sent his wife and children away, knowing that the notoriously brutal and murderous deputies were intent on killing everyone in the home. You’d rather not die fighting the authorities over false charges.

You want to come and go like the wind, not barred from entering or leaving places of your choosing. Sometimes, perhaps, like a very light wind, that comes and goes almost without being noticed. Sometimes, perhaps, like a fierce storm wind that blows through and clears out all the terrible things in the way of peace, justice, and decency.

How do you get there?

Perhaps you have despaired of finding a free country. Perhaps, like me, you’ve looked. Done your research. Read Erwin Strauss on How to Start Your Own Country. Gone to the founding conference in AD 1995 of the New Country Foundation. Met Mike Oliver who founded the Republic of Minerva with money from John Templeton. Met with Michael van Notten and his associates, including Spencer MacCallum, and worked on building a new Hong Kong in the Gulf of Aden. Joined what is now called Liberty International and attended various of their meetings over the years. Looked for people talking about individual sovereignty or any sort of independent sovereignty, and met with sons of Confederate veterans, League of the South, Republic of Texas provisional governments (two out of three that were extant at the time I met with them). Attended the Grand Western Conference II and helped compose and set your name to the declaration of independence of the Free Mountain West. Travelled on four continents, looking, and held online discussions with people on the other three continents from time to time.

There are no free countries on Earth. The people involved in human communities in space projects are mostly wicked authoritarians who take Werner von Braun, a former SS officer and slave camp operator, as the example of how they want to do things.

So you might say to yourself, well, if there are no free places on Earth, perhaps we should make one. Or, in a very ambitious moment, consider making several hundred such places. I’ll go you one better.

At Christmas in 1995, I was given a copy of the paperback of Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s book War and Anti-War. You should read it. Quite good, really. In it they discuss a conversation they had with Warren Christopher, a rat fink functionary of war profiteers who served as mass murderer Bill Clinton’s secretary of state 1993-1997. During their chat with him, he told the Tofflers that if people were ever allowed to have their own way about who should live in and around them, there would be over 5,000 countries in the world. The Tofflers mentioned, for further evidence of this view, that there were over 600 native sovereignties in North America, two thousand identifiable ethnic populations in Africa, and several thousand in Asia. The former secretary of state, the late Warren Christopher, hated the idea of having so many “country desks.” It would be very inconvenient, to him, as a functionary, to have to have people who had expertise in the languages and customs and ethnic populations of so many places, so he was in favour of the kind of extreme violence that resulted from the Berlin conference of 1884-5. That conference drew the borders of Africa. It took place in, as the name indicates, the city of Berlin, not in Africa. There was exactly one country from Africa represented at the event, the empire of Ethiopia. All the rest of Africa was regarded as the colonial property, and all the other peoples of Africa were considered the chattel slaves of one or another European empire.

For a time, I had the intention of writing a book that I would entitle “Five Thousand Free Countries,” and mention that very strange Toffler, Toffler, and Christopher conversation toward the opening pages. But, I haven’t gotten around to it. And lately I am inclined to think that five thousand would not be enough. There are on the close order of 10 billion people on Earth, though the bureau rats and politicians and tax collectors and similar filth can’t seem to count them all. Not that I want any enumeration of the population, the lessons from 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 not having been lost on me. (It is ungodly, wrong, and evil that the constitution for the United States deliberately provides for the enumeration every ten years of the population.)

How many countries should there be? As many as people want. If you and your family don’t want to be in some country that already exists, secede and form your own. After all, in fighting against the evil mass murdering tyrant of England in the 1773-1783 war, the American colonists seceded. Many such cases.

But, a violent revolution to overthrow some other outfit necessarily has to arrange things so that those escaping the authoritarian control of vile tyrants have more power and a stronger military than the people who they are seeking to overthrow. It has always worked out that the revolution is either successful and then betrayed (as the American revolution was betrayed by the convention of 1787) or is successful and then you meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The party on the left is partying on the right, and the beards have all grown longer overnight. The freemasons funded the Bolshevik revolution and the Cuban revolution and quite a few other revolutions, murdered JFK, and did all manner of other violent acts, to gain for themselves more and more power while shedding oceans of blood – arranging the murder in combat of 55 million and the murder in genocides of 262 million during the 20th Century alone.

So, to be candid, although I very strongly encourage you to keep and bear arms, to have guns at home, a good large supply of ammo, and to train in the use of secure communications, night vision gear, body armour, firearms, and explosives, and have a local group of friends and neighbours upon whom you can rely for mutual self-defence, I do not think you are likely to build a new free country out of the embers of some war torn territory. Which, when you look around where you live, is what your home would become if you went to war to overthrow tyranny.

What to do? Stop supporting the tyrants, for one thing. You don’t need their permission to hunt, fish, cut down trees, make a fire, build a home, drive a car, own property. Stop paying them for these things. Stop paying sales tax – every state lets you be sales tax exempt for all purchases for a non-profit organisation, so start one. Every state has a very discounted price for such. There are lots of 501 c 3 groups around, and you can easily get their “taxpayer identification number” and be sales tax exempt if you work at it, contribute to them, help out.

Way back in the late 1990s there were hearings in congress about the internal revenue disservice. Lots of Americans were fed up. The revenuers were ugly, brutal, mean-spirited, vicious, violent, and bad. So congress held hearings to find out what had been done, and there was a great deal of testimony. It was on C-SPAN. You can still watch carefully curated videos of some of the testimony. And the congress critters asked the ugly venal avaricious commissioner from the irs to come say why his staff were so bad and wrong and nasty. So he told them that 66 million Americans the irs thinks should be filing tax papers were not doing so. And he said they didn’t have enough jail cells, enough police to arrest everyone, enough criminal courts to prosecute all of them, so they “had to be brutal” to push the narrative that not filing your taxes is a bad idea.

Since that time, the number of non-filers has increased every year. The last year for which I have good numbers, from the tax agency itself, there were over 125 million non-filers. So why do you file? Well, because they have your address, because you have filed. And they will send you letters. Unless you move and leave no forwarding address. Which might be a burden on you, because you really do have a very nice house. (I myself do not.) But, then, maybe you don’t really want to be free, but comfortable. I cannot help you.

A very great many Americans, for hundreds of years, have been punished, imprisoned, murdered, raped, or tortured by people in power who have claimed they were doing something wrong. Bill Cooper was murdered in 2001 (Remember, remember the fifth of November, the day Bill Cooper was shot. I can see no reason why the deep state treason should ever be forgot.) because he had an outstanding warrant. Not because he had been convicted of any crime, but because gutless cowards in the Apache county Arizona sheriff’s department wanted him dead. So they killed him. Many such cases. Ruby Ridge. The Waco massacre. The battle of Athens, Tennessee. The people in Montrose county, Colorado. Others too numerous to name. Those they capture alive they often torture (January 6 prisoners, for example) and those they imprison often die in jail. Lots of men and women have been raped by the police, sheriffs, jailers, or other inmates in their communities. You perhaps don’t want to look directly at these facts, but, then, you have that really nice home and you prefer to remain comfortable. I myself do not want you to be comfortable, at all, as long as your neighbours are treated with brutality.

Parallel societies

For a great many years I have been aware of what is called Système D. It seems to have begun in 1855 in French West Africa. It has been discussed by George Orwell and the late Anthony Bourdain (murdered by the hired thugs of Adam Schiff on information and belief). So what does the D stand for? Système D is a resourceful and ingenious way of overcoming problems through adaptation and improvisation, especially when faced with difficult or bureaucratic systems. The “D” can stand for various French words like débrouiller (to get on with it or figure things out) or démerder (to get out of the manure or get out of trouble). The concept describes the ability to get things done with limited resources. It can refer to resourcefulness in everyday life. It is also used to describe elements of the informal economy. Sam Konkin called it agorism.

The concept almost certainly originated amongst troops of La Légion étrangère, the French foreign legion. It is also widely known in the Marine Corps as the saying, “improvise, adapt, overcome,” and was made popular in a Clint Eastwood film in 1986, “Heartbreak Ridge.” But it is not an especially militaristic concept. It is about anyone, in any situation, getting themselves out of difficulty.

Americans talk and write about thinking outside the box. Système D is about making your own box, making anything you want without a box, and ignoring the rules, regimentation, strictures, and objections of the arrogant, pompous, ugly, disgusting, foul-minded, rapist, aristo rat, bureau rat, politician filth who think they run things. In many ways, the same concepts date back over 500 years, because Étienne de La Boétie was writing about them in the 1550s. You really ought to read his little pamphlet sized book. Here, go read it now: On Voluntary Servitude.

The short of it is that the tyrants in the District of Corruption are very few in number. Maybe 2.1 million in the military, in all ranks and in all services. Maybe 2.3 million in the bureau rat agencies. (And they are shut down, by the way, and have been since the start of last month.) Mostly, it is you that obeys them, even though they aren’t there.

The tyrants don’t have enough jailers, torturers, spies, listening devices, so they have you. You call the police. You report your neighbours. You complain. You post videos to TikTok. Or maybe you are careful not to do those things. Good for you. But enough of your neighbours are rat finks that you suffer, anyway. So, stop obeying. Stop complying.

Lacerations are red
Contusions are blue
Never call the police
They will hurt you

Stop getting construction permits. Stop paying attention to the prohibition of drilling a water well on your own property. Stop paying attention to the laws prohibiting you from generating your own power. Your truck can generate power. Why are you paying a monopoly utility and all those extra fees the crazy local, state, and feral bureau rats tack on to your electric bill? Make your own power.

Recognise and honour your own power. Do you hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? Do you? I don’t think you do. I think you have some craven miserable desire to obey people who aren’t fit to clean your shoes. But maybe you should start living up to that creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, the Lord our God, with rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. We hold it to be a self-evident truth that the only reason governments should ever have been created is to protect these rights, and judging entirely by the ENTIRE HISTORY of all mankind’s experiences, that has never worked. We also hold it to be a self-evident truth that without the consent of the governed, there is no just power to “the government.” So stop consenting. Stop obeying. Stop complying.

And stop telling yourself that if you obey, if you are a good little German, if you don’t yell at them when the Gestapo comes and hauls your neighbours away for being handicapped, mentally retarded, injured, dissident, Jewish, Gypsy, a labour organiser, or in some other way a threat to the military state, they will leave you alone. They won’t. They murdered Vicky Weaver. Lon Horiuchi, the gutless coward fbi hostage “rescue” team member shot her to death while she was holding her infant child in her arms. The gutless evil scum fbi hostage rescue team set fire to the Branch Davidian church because they wanted to barbecue seven dozen Texans, including women and children. And you think if you obey, they won’t prosecute you, lie about you, testi-lie, rape, murder, and destroy you. You are a fool if you think obedience is any defence against the law.

The law is the law of plunder. It isn’t God’s law. Bastiat tried to tell you, but you weren’t paying attention. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, they create for themselves a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it.” And you let them.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ~ Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago, English translation published 1974.

Do you actually want freedom? Then stop being so obedient. If you tell me that you took an elk in Colorado with a great shot from 100 yards, good on you. If you then go on to tell me that you paid for a non-resident elk tag $825.03 to the bums in the Colorado bureau rat agency, you slimy jerk. Did the elk ask to see your tag before you shot it? Of course not. But you are too frightened to shoot an elk without permission? What are you? “Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you, and may posterity forget you were our countryman,” said Sam Adams.

Do you want to be a part of their system? Pay them for a licence tag for your property and a licence identity card (it is digital, by the way, it is REAL ID, and your department of Homeland Security can use it against you any time they want) in order to drive on the streets that your tax dollars pay for? Why, by the way, are you paying taxes? Why are you so obedient? You are making your neighbours suffer. You should stop.

Why are you sending your children to their schools? They aren’t teaching. They are “educating” which means a systematic instruction. It is propaganda. Stop it. Stop being a part of the evil of unjust men. Now would be a good time to start. After all, if the feral gooferment can be shut down, your state gooferment can, too.

You have no obligation to obey their rules, pay their fees, take their licences, give their nephews jobs inside in offices to write regulations to make everything more expensive and hurt your neighbours. You should stop. Today.

Mutual aid response teams

Did you know there were 676,900 volunteer firefighters in the United States in 2020? That figure represents 65% of all firefighters in America. More than twice as many as the paid bureau rat firefighters in cities. So, it is clearly possible to have fire response teams on a volunteer basis rather than having to rely on taxes.

Two hundred years ago, in the 1820s, the firefighters in cities mostly worked for insurance companies that hired them out of funds paid by people and businesses that had fire protection insurance. So, what did the insurance companies do? The grifters convinced the politicians to pay for the firefighters out of city taxes. Then they didn’t have to hire their own fire fighters. Their profits went way up. You know that company that has the slogan “We are farmers”? Yeah, they aren’t farmers. They’re liars.

Okay, I pretend to hear you say, but it would never work in a big population area? Oh yeah? New South Wales. Population 8.4 million. All volunteer firefighters.

You can cooperate with your neighbours. You can buy radios. You can put a radio in your car or truck. You should, by the way. You can learn how to use it from a few videos online. You can use your radio transceiver on the emergency channels without licence. You can hear what the po-po are saying. You can show up to help at fires if you wish. Help fugitives of injustice escape. Do all kinds of things.

If American communities can have all volunteer fire brigades, and they do, then American communities can respond to crime the same way. And tyranny. And injustice. And invasion. You don’t need to “form a militia.” By definition, if you are an adult and you own a gun, you are the militia. So grow up and start acting like an adult.

You don’t need a permit to sell at the farmer’s market. The people who come around wanting you to collect sales taxes? Those are thieves. They are liars. You have no obligation to them. And they have thugs, bullies with badges, to enforce their will. But why do you obey? You and your friends have radios, and gear, too. So why are you letting people who have bad ideas have it all their way? Citizens can make arrests. Common law courts can be formed to indict with a grand jury and to convict with a petit jury.

You don’t need my permission, either. You can just start doing things. If you are tired of being enslaved, stop obeying. If you are tired of being oppressed, stop complying. If you are tired of the costs of everything, stop paying the mentally deficient and immoral rascals for permission to do things. God didn’t create you to be subservient. You weren’t born with a saddle on your back. The people in power didn’t come out of the womb with boots and spurs. Stop pretending that any of this nonsense is right or proper or ordained.

If you want to be free, you have to choose to free yourself.

This article was originally published on L5 News.

The post Why Free appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many medical policies are driven more by profit than by evidence of what truly benefits patients. Because of this, we frequently see medicine refuse to ever discuss the things that are making us sick (e.g., numerous studies show vaccines make children 2-10X more likely to develop chronic illnesses that are now widespread) while in tandem, we are relentlessly pressured to put all focus onto a few things which do not make enough money for lobbyists to defend them.

In this article, I will explore one of my key frustrations with this dynamic: the medical establishment’s ongoing war on salt. In this article, I will focus on one of my major frustrations with this medical paradigm—the war against salt.

Note: the war against salt began in 1977 when a Senate Committee published dietary guidelines arguing for reduced sodium consumption despite the existing evidence not supporting this. Since then, like many other bad policies, it has developed an nearly unstoppable inertia of its own.

Is Salt Bad For You?

Many people you ask, particularly those in the medical field will tell you salt is bad, and one of the most common pieces of health advice given both inside and outside of medicine is to eat less salt.

Over the years, I’ve heard two main arguments for why salt is bad for you.

First, salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is deadly, so salt is too and should be avoided.

Second, with individuals who have heart failure, eating too many salty foods will create exacerbations of their condition, and as a result, after holidays where people eat those foods (e.g., the 4th of July) more heart failure patients will be admitted to hospitals for heart failure exacerbations.

Note: excessive sodium causes these exacerbations because if an excess amount of fluid accumulates in a compromised system (e.g., because the weakened heart can’t move enough blood to the kidneys to eliminate it), it then overloads other parts of the body (e.g., causing swelling and edema, which, if in the lungs, can be life threatening).

Because of these two things, many in the medical field assume that salt must be bad for you and hence strongly urge patients to avoid it (to the point you often see an elderly patient who loves her salt be aggressively pushed into abandoning it). Unfortunately, the logic behind those two arguments’ logic is less solid than it appears.

The Great Blood Pressure Scam

Since medicine revolves around making money, patient care is often structured to be as profitable as possible. In turn, since recurring revenue is a foundational principle of successful businesses, a key goal in medicine often ends up being to have as many patients as possible on lifelong prescriptions.

In most cases, the drugs that are developed and approved have real value for specific situations, but those situations are not enough to cover the exorbitant cost it requires to get a drug to market. As a result, once drugs are approved, the industry will gradually come up with reasons to give them to more and more people and in turn quickly arrive at the point where many of their customers have greater harm than benefit from the pharmaceutical.

One classic way this is done is by creating a drug that treats a number, asserting that the number has to be within a certain range for someone to be healthy, and then once that is enshrined, narrow and narrow the acceptable range so less and less people are “healthy” and hence need the drug (e.g., this happened with cholesterol once statins were invested). Likewise, this characterizes the history of blood pressure management:

Because of this, many people (particularly the elderly) are frequently pushed to excessively low blood pressures which reduces critical blood perfusion for the organs—which particularly unfortunate as high blood pressure is often a symptom of poor circulation rather than its cause.

As such, reducing the remaining circulation by lowering blood pressure then makes them significantly more likely to get a variety of significant issues (e.g., kidney injuries, cognitive impairment, macular degeneration), the most studied of which is lightheadedness or fainting leading to (often devastating) falls. Additionally, blood pressure medications also often greatly reduce one’s quality of life (e.g., by causing fatigue or erectile dysfunction).

Note: for those interested in learning more about the great blood pressure scam (a lot of what we’re taught about blood pressure is less than accurate), it can be read here.

Low Sodium

A cornerstone of cementing the blood pressure market has been to make everyone terrified of salt (much in the same way making people terrified of the sun is a cornerstone of the lucrative skin cancer treatment market—despite the fact the deadly skin cancers are actually due to a lack of sunlight).

Remarkably, much like the great dermatology scam (which has been able to make a massive amount of money from removing cancers that almost never become life threatening) the link between blood pressure and salt consumption is actual quite tenuous.

For example, the most detailed review of this subject found that drastic salt reduction typically results in less than a 1% reduction in blood pressure. Likewise, doctors rarely recognize that patients in the hospital are routinely given large amounts of IV 0.9% sodium chloride, in many cases receiving ten times the daily recommended sodium chloride we are supposed to consume—yet their blood pressure often barely rises.

Note: some individuals and certain ethnicities are salt-sensitive. They may experience greater increases in blood pressure or worsening of other symptoms when consuming moderate amounts of salt (although this does not apply to the majority of the population).

Despite this, patients are often pushed to eliminate all (or almost all) salt from their life. Beyond this significantly reducing their quality of life (as people like salty foods) it can be dangerous. For example:

• A study of 181 countries found that countries with lower salt consumption have shorter life expectancies.

• Low sodium levels (hyponatremia) are strongly correlated with a risk of dying (e.g., the salt consumption target we are recommended to follow increases one’s risk of dying by 25%). Likewise, a common reason for hospital admissions, are symptoms resulting from hyponatremia (as once sodium levels get too low, it can be very dangerous), and 15-20% of hospitalized patients have low sodium levels at admission.
Note: mild hyponatremia is also associated with an increased risk of death.

• Reduced salt consumption, not surprisingly, increases one’s risk of hyponatremia (e.g., one study one study found salt restriction made hypertensive patients 9.9 times more likely to develop hyponatremia).
Note: many blood pressure and psychiatric medications put you at risk for dangerously low sodium levels (e.g., SSRI antidepressants make you 3.16 times more likely to develop hyponatremia). Additionally, certain patients (e.g., those with autonomic nervous issues) are much more sensitive to salt restriction causing hypotension (low blood pressure).

• Low dietary sodium intake causes a 34% increase in cardiovascular disease and death.

• Rapidly lowering blood sodium levels reduces cardiac output and blood pressure in a manner resembling traumatic shock (which frequently raises the heart rate as the heart tries to compensate for insufficient blood). Low salt consumption, in turn, has been repeatedly linked to tachycardia (and atrial fibrillation).

• Aging kidneys have a reduced ability to respond to changes in blood sodium levels (putting them at greater risk for hyponatremia following sodium deprivation).
Note: three of the most common symptoms of hyponatremia (which lead people to go to the Emergency Room) are fatigue, confusion and difficulty concentrating.

• Many have reported discovering low salt consumption was the cause of their fatigue and lightheadedness (which has also been proven in a clinical trial which treated postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome with increasing dietary sodium).

Note: chronically low blood pressure (e.g., POTS) has been shown to be one cause of chronic fatigue syndrome,1,2 and POTS is often treated with increased dietary sodium.

• Chronic sodium depletion has been linked to fatigue and insomnia.

•Many readers have shared with me that a variety of health issues improved once they began consuming natural salt (e.g., headaches, erectile dysfunction, waking up in the middle of the night or chronically elevated blood pressures).

Note: a variety of other health issues (e.g., worsening of diabetes or a stomach hydrochloric acid deficiency) have also been linked to insufficient dietary sodium.

Read the Whole Article

The post What They Never Tell Us About Salt appeared first on LewRockwell.

“I love Ron Paul. Ron Paul is awesome. I would have Ron Paul on the show regularly. He is a hero because Ron Paul had the courage to … challenge old sacred cows of the Republican Party.” – Charlie Kirk, July 17 2025

Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns influenced and inspired many young people, especially when the candidate spoke at college campuses. One of those young people was Charlie Kirk.

As a teenager Kirk attended events of the Tea Party, the organic grassroots movement inspired by Dr. Paul’s presidential campaigns which can thus claim Dr. Paul as its philosophical and ideological father. Dr. Paul’s principal campaign policies were a non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Fed and economic liberty. A New York Times profile described Kirk as being “smitten with the astringent libertarian worldview of Ron Paul.” Charlie began speaking at Tea Party rallies with the objective of attracting young people who were becoming victims of generational theft through the profligate spending and bureaucracy of the US government. The initial mission of Turning Point USA when Kirk and Bill Montgomery co-founded the non-profit was promoting economic liberty, limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.

I became aware of the influence of Dr. Paul, a proponent of Austrian economics, on Kirk when I heard former attorney Baron Coleman, who is currently investigating Charlie’s assassination, comment on his YouTube channel that TPUSA was founded in 2012 as “a sort of Mises Institute for college kids.”

Six days after the shocking murder of Kirk, Dr. Paul was already on the case. He questioned the FBI official narrative and asked, “who done it?” in his article published on Mises Institute’s web site.

Lew Rockwell, founder of the Mises Institute, republished this article on his own web site LewRockwell.com.

X’s AI tool Grok  and Chat GPT came up with a lot of interesting details when I did inquiries that sparked further research. Dr. Paul appeared as a guest on The Charlie Kirk Show in 2023 where they discussed non-interventionism and Kirk called Dr. Paul “one of the most influential and ‘prophetic’ congressmen of the last 50 years for foreseeing the crises of endless wars, Fed overreach and inflation.” On February 10, 2025 Kirk endorsed Paul as Fed Chair arguing “Ron Paul would make a great next Chairman of the Fed. No other institution in American life has so eroded the purchasing power of working Americans as the Fed, and as a longtime critic and skeptic, Ron Paul would be a living and breathing force functioning to bring reform and accountability.”

When Kirk endorsed a Texas Comptroller candidate, Charlie described him as “Ron Paul meets Donald Trump,” who matched the populist appeal of Trump with Paul’s fiscal beliefs.

TPUSA shifted its focus when Zionist Pastor Rob McCoy approached Kirk to add Zionist Christian evangelism to the non-profit’s mission. TPUSA started concentrating on religious and cultural issues and with McCoy’s influence Kirk was a fierce supporter of Israel and US funding of its Middle East wars on behalf of the Zionist state. Students continued to be interested in economic issues due to self-interest in their own future attempting to get jobs, buy houses, get married and start families. TPUSA grew to over 850 chapters by 2018 with the assistance of Republican donors including Ron Paul supporter Foster Friess.

As a growing number of the public now know, Charlie’s unquestioning support of US foreign policy began to change. As early as September 10, 2019 Kirk circled back to Dr. Paul’s non-interventionist vision echoing George Washington’s farewell address that warned America against engaging in entangling alliances with foreign nations. “There is nothing conservative about endless war,” Charlie posted on X about US funding the bloody Ukraine-Russia conflict. “Foreign occupation of a country 4,000 miles away while we are 22 trillion in debt puts our country at risk. We have spent 5 TRILLION on these wars since 9-11. With a destabilized region and thousands of American lives lost. End the war.”

Kirk began to question the “special relationship” between the US and Israel. He asked Patrick Bet David on his October 12, 2023 podcast if the Zionist state stood down on October 7 when Kirk knew as a frequent visitor Israel was a virtual fortress with young ISD soldiers every 10 yards. Eventually Charlie spoke out against the ethnic cleansing in Gaza. In July in a room full of people Kirk implored President Trump and Vice President Vance not to go to war with Iran. Trump reportedly reacted angrily. Kirk’s evolution was due to spiritual revelations, listening to his Gen Z supporters, doing his own research, and the influence of his friends Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.

Growing numbers of internet sleuths and independent journalists like Baron Coleman who do not believe the FBI official narrative continue to investigate Kirk’s assassination. These grassroots investigators find the government story that a tranny-lover named Tyler Robinson perhaps collaborating with a tranny group did the dirty deed nonsensical and overwhelmingly suspect the Mossad/CIA may have had a hand in planning and executing the murder. A substantial amount of circumstantial evidence in the minds of many lead them to conclude Kirk’s emergence as a politically influential activist for peace and his departure from the warmongering policies of his donors was the likely reason why he was assassinated. Although other factors are playing a role, this conflict between the FBI official narrative believers and doubters is causing what appears to be a fatal fissure in MAGA.

Kirk had a deep respect for Dr. Paul and credited him with challenging the Republican establishment: “He made people defend the indefensible.” In the end, although Charlie expressed his concern to friends that Israel might kill him, he could no longer defend the indefensible himself.

While US foreign policy continues to reflect the deadly agenda of billionaire donors, and Charlie Kirk’s assassination remains an unraveling mystery, Gen Z overwhelmingly opposes war, US foreign aid, military interventionism, and Zionist influence over American policies. As Charlie said of Dr. Paul, “We all follow in your footsteps.” There is a shift within the younger generation and in that there is much hope.

The post Ron Paul’s Influence on Charlie Kirk and the Maga Schism appeared first on LewRockwell.