Aggregatore di feed

I have criticized Donald Trump countless times for his pattern of promising, bloviating, then backing off. Or more often flip flopping. I coined the term the Trumpenstein Project to explain his befuddling behavior. He talked the talk, but never walked the walk. All toupee and no cattle. Well, now he can’t stop walking.

Trump 2.0 has unleashed a series of often fine looking executive orders in his first month back in office. Super model executive orders. He abolished birth right citizenship. He withdrew the U.S. from the WHO. He rolled back any recognition of the transgender lunacy. He declared an emergency at the southern border. He reaffirmed a commitment to free speech and against censorship, for what that’s worth. He is ending the annoying Daylight Savings Time. And now he’s establishing English as the official language of the United States. Now, they all sound really good, but how much will actually change? Already a federal judge has predictably ruled that the ban on birth right citizenship is unconstitutional. That’s what federal judges do under the odious guise of Judicial Review. In thirty days, really on his first day back in office, Trump did more than he did in his previous four years in the White House.

A few days ago, Trump staged (and it was definitely staged) the most remarkable meeting with a foreign leader that Washington, D.C. has ever seen. From the moment he greeted vertically challenged Ukrainian “democratic” leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a Trumpian troll at his casual attire, mocking him with “I see you got dressed up,” it was pure WWE theater. Zelenskyy has shown he is willing to wear a suit and tie, if the occasion calls for it. For instance, when he meets with Israeli “democratic” leader Bibi Netanyahu. During the meeting, which was aired live before the press, Trump and J.D. Vance both scolded the pathetic former Ukrainian comedian like he was a naughty schoolboy, not an upstanding world leader who once wowed audiences by playing the piano with his penis. Zelenskyy’s Boris Badenov impression just didn’t intimidate anyone, and Trump supposedly wound up throwing him out of the place.

Yes, Trump made certain to have his hands formed into the familiar triangle, as he met with the upstanding “democratic” leader of Ukraine. Just as Elon Musk made certain to flash similarly unnatural hand and finger formations, during his recent visit to the Oval Office, where one of his estimated one billion children wiped a booger on Trump’s desk or something. To be fair, I recall someone advising me, back in the misty days of America 1.0, that I should form my hands into a triangle when being interviewed. Something about how it displayed confidence and power. I don’t know, it didn’t work for me. I don’t see how you can feign power when the other party knows you don’t have it. All those weird things the rich and famous do with their hands obviously must be significant. They appear to be swearing allegiance to someone or something. Like wearing your guy’s letterman’s jacket. Or a blue collar name tag.

It would have been great to have video of Trump picking up the arrogant “democratic” leader with the Napoleon Complex, and tossing him onto the lawn of the White House. Maybe tarred and feathered him, using red, white and blue tar. Poor Volodymyr didn’t even to get to eat the lunch prepared in his honor. As Trump lashed out at him during the meeting, he certainly sounded the right themes. “You’re playing with millions of lives. You’re playing with World War III.” Zelenskyy appeared unmoved. And his fanbase in Hollywood and the state sponsored media were appalled at how disrespected he was. Treated horribly by the bully Trump and J.D. Vance, whom they never failed to denigrate for supposedly wearing eyeliner. I don’t know, isn’t that kind of bullying? It certainly would be if the eyeliner adorned the face of a random, obese, green haired, heavily tattooed transgender with a nose ring.

Those who somehow thought this cartoonish Bullwinkle villain in a black sweat suit, who refuses to consider a ceasefire or stop sacrificing his people in a hopeless cause, was the good guy, were reaffirming their commitment to war. Zelenskyy appears to want World War III. So does the entire American “Woke” Left. Nuclear weapons are so cool now! No Nukes? Sorry, can’t remember that. My memory is going- smoked a lot of pot back at those concerts. But nukes are a reasonable option when you #Stand with Ukraine. Sure, Zelenskyy banned all opposition parties and shut down newspapers who criticized him. But we paid Ben Stiller $4 million to slobber all over him, and Ben Stiller wouldn’t lie. And do I need to remind you what he can do with a piano? That certainly ought to count for something. Would Bono give a concert in the middle of an alleged war zone for just any “democratic” leader?

It is beyond my poor powers to fathom exactly what the purpose of the steel match encounter between Trump and Zelenskyy was. To make Trump look tough to the MAGA crowd? Why was the press there, and who was the guy who blasted Zelenskyy for his decidedly non-formal outfit? The most important question is; did Trump slip Zelenskyy yet another billion or so during his unceremonious exit from the White House? If Trump permits another penny- before he outlaws them- to be sent to this arrogant actor/dictator, then that destroys any pretense that this was a legitimate event. But I’m guessing that’s what happened. Or will happen. It’s a Trumpenstein thing, you wouldn’t understand. But if Trump stops the aid to Ukraine, and continues to lecture on the dangers of a World War III, then that would be a good thing. And it would cause more “Woke” warmongers’ heads to explode, which is always fun.

TDS levels were already on red alert, prior to the Zelenskyy carnival sideshow. We continue to hear allegations that Elon Musk and DOGE are really “cleaning house.” Firing government workers left and right, many of them the essential, hard working types that most of us are largely unaware of. One claim is that some of these terminated employees were “working on nuclear weapons” or something. That’s kind of vague, isn’t it? Actually, the claims on both sides are pretty dubious. Musk and Trump brag about saving a gazillion dollars or so already. Without eliminating any agencies. Just on auditing USAID. I’d like more details with that, please. And those with TDS are apoplectic about losing the opportunity to pay all those humble and lovable federal workers a very generous wage, along with a much better benefit package than those in the boring world of private industry receive.

I would like to know where all this public outrage was when countless American workers in private industry were kicked to the curb, through no fault of their own, in the past several decades. In the first sixteen years of this century alone, some 600,000 employees were laid off, outsourced, or replaced by cheap foreign labor by just eleven companies. The examples are never ending; IBM got rid of 60,000 employees in 1993. Sears and K-Mart laid off 50,000 in January 1993. Happy New Year! A T &T laid off 40,000 in 1996. Ford eliminated 35,000 workers in 2002. General Motors- 47,000 in 2009. Citigroup- 50,000 in 2008. These are just a few instances of the outsourcing/ downsizing fervor that gripped corporate America, beginning in the 1980s. Dell laid off 26,000 in 2024. I didn’t see any gnashing of teeth over that on social media. But there is a pussyhat-level of screeching over the prospect of government cutbacks.

Why this double standard? Why do the same people who snickered, “you should have learned new skills,” when some useless eater in private industry lost his/her/ job, abandon all reason over the prospect of scrutinizing federal workers? For the first time, I might add. Until now, no one working for the government had to worry about being outsourced. Replaced by a foreign visa worker. The joke goes that it’s impossible to be fired from the federal government. But it’s no joke. You have to do something really awful to lose a government job. So why then, is it so easy to be fired by a private company? As I can personally attest to, this is especially true in so-called “right to work” states. Where they can fire you without cause, as happened to me in 2018. What DOGE is suggesting is finally looking at what various public employees actually do, to earn their generous taxpayer provided income.

In private industry, we all have been scrutinized. I’ve had bosses that literally looked over your shoulder. Stared a hole through you while you were trying to concentrate on your work. That would never happen to any government worker. I had a friend who worked in the Post Office, back when they paid extraordinarily well, and had premium benefits. He described how there was some immigrant worker, whose job it was to sort mail by zip code, that routinely just tossed mail into various zip code slots without even looking at them. Imagine how many others like that there might be. That goes a long way towards explaining why it frequently takes so long for mail to travel such a short distance. My friend eventually grew tired of trying to figure out his job function- no one really supervised him- so he just followed the crowd and did whatever he wanted. I doubt he was the only government worker like this.

I have a lot of family members who work now, or have worked in the past, for the U.S. government. I live in the D.C. suburbs, after all. I see double and triple dippers every day when I’m walking my lovely dog Riley. I can understand how they, or any other government worker, would feel threatened by this. But most of the criticism is coming from those who don’t work for the government. Shouldn’t they be the least bit interested in seeing just what it is they’re paying for? If the urban legends about three hour lunches and the like are true, should those of us who are these workers’ de facto employers have any say about that? You have to have never had any contact with a phone representative from any government agency, to believe there isn’t massive incompetence among the ranks of federal workers. Wait in line at a Social Security office. Or a DMV location. Try contacting the IRS. Or calling your “representative.”

Yes, massive government firings would mean that all those largely “unskilled” workers would be competing for the dwindling number of jobs that pay a living wage, alongside all the “unskilled” workers who never had a government job. That situation has to be addressed. Either Trump oversees the building of a great number of new factories in this country, or you’re going to eventually have to pay millions of people a universal basic income. I think it would be cheaper to pay everyone a UBI, while eliminating all the other programs that supposedly offer assistance, but aren’t easy to get. Whether Elon Musk is planning to nefariously chip and vaccinate us or not, AI is here to stay, and will eliminate even more jobs. We outsourced our industry for good with all those horrific trade deals like NAFTA, which Trump often references with disdain. But those tariffs will mean nothing without new domestic factories.

And in the same week, we saw rumors and more rumors about the Epstein List finally being released. Attorney General Pam Bondi said she had it on her desk, then vented at the FBI for dragging its feet, then dragged her own feet. Eventually, a truly ridiculous photo-op of various conservative “influencers” was widely circulated, where the likes of Mike Cernovich, DC Draino (whoever that is), Liz Wheeler, and the Libs of TikTok woman were captured waving folders that read “The Epstein Files Phase 1.” This “Phase 1” apparently consisted of completely redacted pages. What exactly are the legal ramifications of this “list” anyhow? The authorities admitted taking videos and hard drives from Epstein’s mansion. Why aren’t any “influencers” waving them in public? As I’ve said, if Trump’s name is on any list, MAGA people will say it’s fake. If it’s not, those with TDS will say it’s fake.

Read the Whole Article

The post DOGE, The Epstein List, and World War III appeared first on LewRockwell.

The concept of an impending apocalypse has been a source of fascination, fear, and speculation throughout human history. From ancient texts to modern science fiction, the notion that our civilization could come to an end has sparked countless theories and warnings. While some may dismiss these ideas as mere fantasy or superstition, there are observable trends and events that suggest the potential for catastrophic changes in our world. In this article, we will explore eight warning signs that could indicate an impending apocalypse.

1. Environmental Degradation

One of the most pressing indicators of an impending apocalypse is the rapid degradation of our environment. Climate change, deforestation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity are all symptoms of a planet in distress.

The rise in global temperatures, largely attributed to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and industrial practices, has led to more extreme weather events—hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and flooding are becoming increasingly common. The accelerating melting of polar ice caps poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide. As ecosystems collapse and species go extinct at an unprecedented rate, the foundational elements that sustain life on Earth are unraveling.

This degradation does not only impact natural systems; it also poses significant risks to food security, water supply, and human health. As resources become scarcer and competition for them intensifies, social unrest and conflict may follow—potentially setting the stage for a more significant apocalyptic scenario.

2. Geopolitical Tensions

In an increasingly interconnected world, geopolitical tensions can escalate into larger conflicts with global ramifications. The rise of nationalism, authoritarianism, and territorial disputes has created a volatile international landscape. The possibility of nuclear confrontation remains a critical concern; nations possessing such weapons often find themselves in standoffs that could quickly spiral out of control.

Recent events highlight how fragile peace can be in certain regions. Disputes over resources like water and energy can inflame existing rivalries between nations, leading to potential warfare that could destabilize entire regions and lead to widespread chaos. Furthermore, cyber warfare has emerged as a new battlefield where digital attacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, sowing discord and fear among populations.

The combination of economic instability—often exacerbated by pandemics or climate disasters—can create perfect conditions for civil unrest. History has shown us that desperate times can lead to desperate measures: when people feel cornered or threatened, they may resort to extreme actions that could lead to societal collapse.

3. Economic Instability

Economic systems are inherently complex and interconnected; when one piece falters, the repercussions can be felt globally. Warning signs such as rising debt levels, stock market volatility, and increasing income inequality often precede major economic downturns.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how quickly economies can unravel due to unforeseen circumstances. Supply chain disruptions led to shortages of essential goods while unemployment rates soared in many countries. These factors combined with inflation have raised concerns about economic stability as governments struggle to provide support to their citizens.

As more people fall into poverty or see their standard of living decline, social cohesion may erode. Economic desperation can lead individuals or groups to act irrationally or violently in pursuit of survival. In a worst-case scenario, prolonged economic instability could trigger revolutions or regime changes—events that may serve as precursors to larger apocalyptic scenarios.

4. Pandemics and Global Health Crises

The world has witnessed how quickly a virus can spread across borders and disrupt daily life. The COVID-19 pandemic was a stark reminder of this reality—not only did it claim millions of lives but it also exposed weaknesses in global health systems.

As human populations continue to encroach upon wildlife habitats through urbanization and agriculture, the potential for zoonotic diseases (those transmitted from animals to humans) increases dramatically. Climate change also plays a role by shifting habitats and influencing disease patterns.

Emerging infectious diseases pose not only health risks but also social and economic challenges. Overwhelmed healthcare systems may struggle to cope with outbreaks; misinformation can spread rapidly online, leading communities into panic or denial rather than informed action. If unchecked, these global health crises could become more severe over time—potentially contributing to societal breakdowns reminiscent of apocalyptic narratives.

5. Technological Dependence

Our growing reliance on technology presents both remarkable advancements and substantial vulnerabilities. As societies become increasingly digitalized—from smart cities powered by AI algorithms to decentralized finance—the risks associated with technological failures become paramount.

Cybersecurity threats can undermine infrastructures essential for day-to-day life—from power grids to healthcare systems. A coordinated cyberattack could cripple vital services within hours; ransomware attacks have already demonstrated their capacity to disrupt businesses across various sectors.

Moreover, technological advancements bring ethical dilemmas that society struggles to address—questions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), surveillance states, data privacy rights—creating divisions among populations struggling with these uncertainties. If mishandled or mismanaged, technology might contribute to more significant societal schisms or even lead us down dystopian paths akin to science fiction depictions of apocalypse scenarios.

Read the Whole Article

The post 8 Warning Signs of an Impending Apocalypse To Watch For appeared first on LewRockwell.

I spent 16 years as a lawyer and a judge before going to Congress and have maintained my law license and have done a very small amount of legal work since leaving Washington.

Thus, I was shocked when over 6,000 law professors and law students signed a petition demanding that Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley be disbarred simply for questioning the results of the 2020 election.

Professor Alan Dershowitz said that Cruz was the best student he ever had at Harvard Law School, and Hawley graduated from both Stanford and Yale Law School.

I graduated from the George Washington University Law School and was taught back then that even the worst criminals had the right to be defended in our courts.

The petition mentioned above showed me that too many of our law schools had become very political, very partisan, and really little more than leftist think tanks.

Now, there are apparently thousands of left-wing lawyers chomping at the bit to sue President Trump, trying to stop everything he is trying to do.

As I write this column, there are three federal judges who are at least temporarily stopping Trump’s executive order to do away with birthright citizenship.

I have been interested in this issue for a long time, and was asked by The Tennessean newspaper to write a column which was published on August 15, 2010 under the title “U.S. Citizenship Is A Privilege.” That column follows here:

I spent 7½ years before coming to Congress as a Criminal Court Judge in Knoxville. Because of this and other experiences, I believe there is a right way to do things and a wrong way.

Thus, I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration and do not believe those who are here illegally should be given the same status and rights as those who are here legally.

This, in part, is why I believe children born to those who are here illegally should be treated as citizens of the countries from which their parents came and not as citizens of the United States.

When I was a judge, I was probably toughest on crimes against children, and I believe children of illegal immigrants should be treated with the greatest of kindness.

But, citizenship in the United States should be regarded as a very great privilege, and it should not be granted lightly to anyone.

I am supporting an effort that is just beginning in Congress to change the birthright citizenship provisions in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has been changed before. It refers only to voting by men, and this was changed by the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote.

One of the original purposes of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship and count as a whole (instead of just 3/5 as in the original Constitution) those persons who had been slaves. This was right and proper and should have been done long before it was.

Those who imply or say that being tough on illegal immigration is somehow racist are resorting to the sort of scurrilous personal attacks and childish sarcasms that people often use when their case is weak.

It is very difficult to change the Constitution, and it should be. And the odds are very much against changing the birthright citizenship provision.

But the 14th Amendment was not written to deal with anything related to illegal immigration. Our leaders in 1868 could never have envisioned the numbers we have coming here illegally today.

I have heard and read that half the people of the world have to get by on $2.00 or less a day [now it is $4.00]. Some three billion people are hoping for one good meal today and probably will not get it.

We are blessed beyond our comprehension to live in this country, and Americans are by far the most generous people in the world. No other country has even come close to the many millions we have allowed in legally over the course of just the last few years.

But our entire infrastructure – hospitals, schools, jails, roads, sewers, etc. – just could not support the rapid influx of the mega millions who would come here if we simply opened our borders.

While we all sympathize with those billions who are living in terrible poverty around the world, we have to have a legal, orderly system of immigration and it must be enforced.

I saw a television program several years ago which showed pregnant women who had come from Mexico to San Diego just before delivering so they could get free medical care, and so that their children would be U.S. citizens.

Some adults have later used the citizenship of their children as a basis to gain immigration for their families.

The birthright citizenship provision should be changed as a part of the overall reform of our immigration laws.”

This column written in 2010 is even more timely today.

This originally appeared on The Knoxville Focus.

The post Left-Wing Lawyers Are Trying To Stop Trump on Everything appeared first on LewRockwell.

In President Trump’s second term, he has been moving fast. He is already passing the overall total numbers of executive orders of Bush, Obama, and himself in his first term, and he looks set to easily pass the overall total of the Biden presidency.

Trump’s executive orders, although limited in overall extent, have been substantive starts in such areas as government efficiency, energy, and immigration.

We need Trump to not respect judges’ attempts to grab the executive power we have delegated to him to use on our behalf.

And we need more of the same. Much more.

Bring On Good Executive Orders

Executive orders that enforce the Constitution and constitutional statutes are exactly what we need given the current congress’s and the next congress’s compositions.

Both now and after the 2026 mid-terms, both houses will consist of large Democratic minorities that are highly Progressive, plus pluralities of Republicans who are moderately to highly Progressive. Together, they form Progressive supermajorities, which we see in action on every budget bill.

Progressive majorities won’t pass anything that’s substantial and good. It’s a strategic error to think that any more-constitutionalist president should be measured by how thoroughly such Progressives enact his recommendations on legislation, and to think that any good statutes would be permanent.

Instead, presidents have the duty to independently interpret constitutionality and only take actions that they interpret are constitutional. These will become lasting, but through a different process than most people envision.

If a president’s actions are right and extensive, they will severely limit governments. This will be popular from the start, and this will bring better results relatively quickly.

A president who severely limits governments will remain popular. Successors who do the same will remain popular. Regardless of whether the president or good successors are impeached and removed, the voters will get to keep returning others who will continue.

In time, new legislators will arrive as reinforcements. That will be when these presidents’ recommendations on legislation will finally get enacted as laws. And starting then, these laws will in fact endure—for a generation at least; and if they limit governments severely enough, then for much longer.

Go Big or Go Home

Fast, extensive change is always best for freedom. This was demonstrated well after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as summarized in the figure.

Figure. Economic freedom of different groups of nations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Figure: James Anthony. Data: Oleh Havrylyshyn et al.

If a change is initially for the best, then fast, extensive change delivers the greatest overall impact and benefits. In addition, it bypasses the current incumbents and creates the strongest-possible new incumbents. This creates political support for holding the good changes in place for the long run.

If a change is initially for the worse, then fast, extensive change creates the strongest-possible pushback. Soon enough, this brings fast, extensive change for the better, after all.

Prevent Losses

So absolutely, moving fast is best.

Of course some mistakes will get made. It’s excellent that Trump has shown that he will listen to pushback against mistakes. Even so, with very-many actions already in play and with plenty more to come, it’s harder than ever to push back and get heard. It becomes all-the-more important to push back clearly and resolutely.

An even more-excellent way is to steer clear of mistakes in the first place.

To push back here, and to also show here how best to prevent mistakes in the first place while still moving just as fast, here are examples.

• Support of Stargate AI, with uses that may include surveillance and mRNA cancer therapies, is a non-starter if you understand from first principles that the people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches, and also that no person shall be unduly deprived of life and no competitors shall be unduly deprived of liberty or property.
• Tariffs are non-starters if you understand from first principles that setting tariffs is legislative power, so as an executive, you won’t executively accept and use this power in the first place. This is also best in practice. Tariffs make marginal producers unprofitable. So tariffs reduce supplies, and this increases prices. These increased prices must be paid here, by producers who must buy intermediate products, and by customers. Government people take a bigger cut, making us less free. Returns get unknowable, so producers forgo investment; America’s Great Depression was prolonged by regime uncertainty. Domestic producers grow increasingly uncompetitive and end up losing business and cutting jobs.
• A Bitcoin reserve and a sovereign wealth fund are non-starters if you understand from first principles that there’s no enumerated power to accumulate assets other than for military use, postal use, or national-government occupancy.
• Gaza intervention that ends up bringing new support to Israel’s enemy Hamas and rebuilding it next door is a non-starter if you understand from first principles that our people’s rights are the most secure from war when we maximize our people’s freedom, and then our people add value much faster than coercive potential enemies’ people do.
• No taxes on tips is a non-starter if you understand from first principles that the only revenue source that takes the same proportion of each person’s liberty is a fully-flat tax on labor income.

Good Boundaries, Good Government

Imagine a state-of-the-union message that consists only of (1) a forthright report of the executive branch’s performance on spending and debt in the last year, followed by (2) recommended measures to consider in the next year.

That’s hard to imagine. But it’s just good management, and it’s called for by the Constitution.

Always change fast and extensively. Also, prevent losses. In all things—even just in state-of-the-union messages—hold yourself to constitutional boundaries, and let the chips fall where they may.

America became great because its governments long were severely limited. Bring us back that old-time freedom, and more.

The post Go Big Every Time. Also Prevent Losses appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ash Wednesday is the one day of the year when we can see if the strangers we meet in street and store are Catholic—at least we can see who went to Mass to get their Lent started. While the black ashes clearly mark the brows of the baptized, it isn’t clear to most of those baptized and ashed who it was that began this grim yet gritty liturgical tradition recalling “the way to dusty death,” as Macbeth put it.

The first man to smear Lenten ashes on the foreheads of the faithful did so not only as a reminder that we are dust and to dust we must return, but also to proclaim that it is from the ashes that we will rise again. It was one who was no stranger to suffering, service, and the struggle over crumbling culture and lost souls—and with the steely determination to do something about it with prayer and penance. The ashes of Ash Wednesday come to us from no less a personage than Pope St. Gregory the Great.

In 601, three years before he died at 64, Pope Gregory set the day for the beginning of Lent as 46 days before Easter. His reasoning was to establish 40 days of fasting while including six feast days on the Sundays—for in Gregory’s words, “Who bends the knee on Sunday denies God to have risen.” This was when a Wednesday became the beginning of Lent, and Pope Gregory marked that Wednesday by marking his flock with ashes in the form of a cross, according to the ancient pagan and biblical tradition denoting mourning.

Ash Wednesday is a perfect icon of Pope Gregory’s totally down-to-business and somewhat down-in-the-mouth Catholicism. In his own day, fourteen hundred years ago, Gregory was convinced he was living in the end times—and he would certainly have that opinion were he living today. We may not have to deal with marauding Lombards, but we are under attack by wilder breeds of barbarian. And though Gregory showed us what it means to be great, it was in his sacrificial determination to see God’s will through that he did so, making his whole life a Lent.

Born to a Roman Senator, Gregory’s Italy was languishing under the botched conquests of the late Emperor Justinian, famine, disease, bureaucratic corruption, and educational collapse. Gregory received a rigorous training in the liberal arts and a thorough course in religious studies to prepare him for a promising political career as a Prefect of Rome. But his secular formation drove him to a Benedictine monastery, where Gregory found peace in the simplicity and structure of monastic life.

Distinguished for his intelligence and learning, Gregory the monk was commanded by Pope Benedict I to become a deacon of Rome. Soon after, Pope Pelagius II sent Gregory the deacon to Constantinople to be a papal emissary. When Gregory the emissary tried to sneak back to his abbey to be a monk again, he was made a papal secretary. When Pelagius died, Gregory the secretary was pressed to become pope. Though Gregory refused the holy office, appealing to the Byzantine Emperor and even fleeing Rome, Gregory could not escape. The people would not allow it—and neither would God. Gregory became pope.

Though unwilling, Gregory proved one of history’s most active, most influential, and most beloved popes and political leaders. Though disinclined to do great works, Pope Gregory’s devotion to do good works won him greatness. From dining with beggars every day to embodying his self-given title “servant to the servants of God,” Gregory was a pope who knew what it meant to love when the going got tough. Though he was hesitant to rise to the occasion of worldly opportunity, he never hesitated to rise to the occasion of heavenly charity.

And all this is why it is so fitting that Gregory stands as a founder of the Lenten tradition. The humility to lower oneself, to accuse oneself, to acknowledge personal fault and spiritual filth, is to be great as Gregory was great—and it is a mystery at the heart of Gregory the Great’s reluctant rise to papal power. It is a mystery embraced in following the Lenten standard of St. Gregory in the ashy cross he gave to the Church. The reluctance to be great is a measure of both sanctity and sanity, and it is therefore a cause for greatness through meekness.

As anyone who has taken Lent seriously knows, meekness is not weakness. It is the noble desire to sit at the lowest place, to deny oneself for the sake of Christ and neighbor. It is strength. Though the meek refrain from resisting evil with force, they overcome it with patient and enduring goodness. The meek are those whose reason guides impulse, restraining anger. They are not freed from anger but possess the will to control it. In this lies strength, virtue, and greatness.

For all its undesirable disciplines, Lent is all about desire: the desire for eternal life. The ashes are our sooty reminder of all that is desirable beyond the dust. Gregory was keenly aware of that; and, if he was great in any way, he was great in the desire for God. Benedictine monk and theologian Jean Leclercq called St. Gregory the “Doctor of Desire,” referring to Gregory’s philosophy that asceticism was a preparation for the desire for God—a training, or cultivation, of desire.

What more should we prepare for on Ash Wednesday? Speaking of sackcloth and ashes, there is a passage in the Book of Job that echoes Elijah’s famous experience where he searches for the Lord in a hurricane, in an earthquake, and in a fire, but he only finds Him in a gentle breeze. Job reads, “There stood one whose countenance I knew not, an image before my eyes, and I heard the voice, as it were, of a gentle wind.” In this murmur, this hidden word, Gregory heard the opening of a lovers’ dialogue. “This inspiration touches the human mind,” he writes, “and by touching lifts it up and represses temporal thoughts, inflaming it with eternal desires.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Put the Ashes in Ash Wednesday? appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s hard to imagine where we would be today in terms of economic progress, industrial production capacity and labour dynamics if Henry Ford never existed. The revolutionary system he pioneered in the early 20th century, largely known for implementing the concept of the “assembly line” (which, notably, was actually invented by Ransom Eli Olds, and merely popularized by Ford), forever changed the way companies thought about production processes.

It massively increased efficiency and it introduced the idea of standardized output. It delivered affordable and reliable cars and later, various consumer goods of dependable and consistent quality to the masses, while at the same time it significantly increased profitability and productivity for the companies that adopted it. All these benefits and progress, however, came at a steep cost, which would soon accumulate and compound. It undermined and denigrated human creativity, it stifled and demonized individuality, free, independent thought and autonomy.

The sharp and perceptive observer will no doubt detect some of the most fundamental, core ideas and principles of Fordism in today’s society and in our current political and economic system. We can see a clear example in public education: Much like Fordism, the education “factory” is also all about uniformity. And much like Ford’s assembly line, which didn’t just produce identical cars, but also demanded identical workers and reduced people to mere cogs in a machine, with no allowance for creativity or deviation, public education also focused on churning out conforming minds filled with pre-approved, sterile and harmless ideas, modest and sheepish ambitions and a sense of duty to follow a narrow, designated path.

It is a system that leaves no room for questions, doubts or challenges and it vehemently suppresses dissenting voices and “dangerous” opinions: if anyone dares to go against the grain or refuses to wholeheartedly embrace the “received wisdom” that is expected to be instantly accepted as the absolute truth, they are immediately dismissed as “problematic”, “fringe” or “antisocial”. They are singled out as pariahs and they soon become a cautionary tale to ensure that other potential dissenters will keep their unsanctioned thoughts and disruptive ideas to themselves. “Go along to get along” is the main lesson that public education imparts and drills into each young citizen, future voter and taxpayer.

This is why at the higher levels of this system, e.g. in academia, we see the Orwellian environment that has so brutally discredited it today. There are intellectual “no-go” zones and there are areas of permitted research, but even in the latter, the researcher must refrain from coloring outside the lines. In order to get the approval of one’s peers and one’s superiors, to climb the academic career ladder and to get the grants to sustain such a career, one’s “scientific findings” must align with and confirm certain views and expectations and that is true in a terrifyingly large number of academic fields, including biology, medicine, economics, sociology and history.

This is not just humiliating and dishonorable for those within those fields. It is extremely dangerous and toxic to society as a whole. After all, it was this blind intellectual subservience and lemming-like behavior that gave us the covid response laws and mandates that ruined the lives of millions of people, as well as the economically catastrophic policies against climate change.

We find similar parallels in the media. Fordist ideals and principles are virtually ubiquitous if one knows what to look for, not just in the legacy news outlets, but in online media platforms too. Adherence to clearly defined narratives is vitally important, as is the nearly robotic repetition of said narratives. It matters not if there are plain-as-day facts that directly contradict it, if there are legitimate questions and sound, logical reasons to challenge and dispute it, or even if the majority of target audience clearly does not believe it.

Sure, total uniformity and conformity of human thought, together effective orchestration and synchronization of human action, can and do yield impressive and predictable results, just like an ant colony would. But it also violently contradicts and oppresses human nature itself, which is why, thankfully, this misanthropic system has no hope of ever being entirely and sustainably enforced. There will always be defiant individuals, free thinkers and brave objectors to challenge and disrupt it and to ensure it will never have a decisive grip over the human race.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Therefore please feel free to share and you can subscribe for my articles by clicking here

The post The Case Against Fordism appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his first address to Congress, Trump presented his Make America Great Again program and extolled the perennial American values of freedom and prosperity. He delivered his speech with marked oratorical skill, never once stumbling over a word or phrase. Although most of his pronouncements were about America and its people flourishing and achieving great things, most of the Democrats remained seated and steadfastly silent the entire time. The only time they cheered was when Trump stated that the U.S. had sent hundreds of billions to Ukraine.

I guess their behavior was an expression of protesting—not the president’s positive vision for the country, but the man himself. American politics has always been riven by partisanship. In the run-up to the Civil War, Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans had violent disagreements about slavery and states rights. What is peculiar about today’s Democrats is how rarely any of them express encouragement or approval for the prospect of American taxpaying citizens doing well.

When asked what his study of nature had taught him about the Creator, the English naturalist, J.B.S. Haldane, reportedly said that the Creator “must be inordinately fond of beetles” (referring to the 30 million different beetle species that inhabit the earth).

We can surmise that the Democrats are inordinately fond of sending money to Ukraine, vaccines, DEI, open borders, censorship, abortion rights, green energy, and transgender procedures.

However, when it comes to celebrating the proposition of We the People flourishing and being free, they sit on their hands and remain glumly silent.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

The post Trump Delivers First Address to Congress appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks., Saleh Abdullah. 

NewsTarget

The post POLIO was 98% eradicated BEFORE THE VACCINE was ever invented and put into circulation, beginning the BIGGEST MEDICAL FARCE in history appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Unlimited Hangout

The post Air Traffic Control Replaced With AI appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Ben Bartee

The post Bioterror Roundup: Google Promises AI-Designed Drugs By End of Year appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

RFK Jr., using his official HHS Secretary account, made a statement declaring anti-Semitism is comparable to history’s deadliest plagues. Very creative way to please the Zionists tying their cause to the issue of health which he was hired to address.

See here.

The post RFK Jr. Declares Anti-Semitism is Comparable to History’s Deadliest Plagues appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Gateway Pundit

The post Hong Kong Firm Sells Panama Canal Stake to BlackRock, Making It Majority Owner Amid Trump’s Pressure To Curb Chinese Influence. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Daniel Larison

The post Israel’s Criminal Starvation of Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

The post rump Administration Announces Steps To Crack Down on Protests Critical of Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

The Truth Barrier

The post The Implosion Of Project Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin. 

https://x.com/AndyHopson/status/1897288827968086155/photo/1

https://x.com/MikeRGlenn/status/1897137765160255563/photo/1

The post Democrats at Trump Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Vasko Kohlmayer.

The post Cartoon: Addressing the Joint Session of Congress appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post Government Advisor Warns UK Is Heading For Civil War appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Time To Reverse Biden’s Attack On The First Amendment! With Guest Ben Swann. appeared first on LewRockwell.

During his long-winded rhetorical romance with protectionist tariffs President Trump excitedly boasted that “We’re gonna take in a lot of money” in tariff taxes.  Oh great, “we” are going to take more money out of the pockets of the American working class with tariff taxes so that it can be spent by federal bureaucrats and politicians instead of the people who earned the money.

Republican party propaganda organs like Breitbart are struggling every day to dream up rationales in defense of protectionist plunder.  Their latest defense is to cite a study that said American retailers will pay more of increased tariff taxes than their customers will.  Well now.  So they admit that it is an anti-American, anti-populist policy that plunders both American retailers (and their American employees, their communities, and their stockholders) as well as American customers of the retailers.  And all that money goes into the black hole of the federal budget.  This will make America “great”?

The post Trump Brags About How He’s Going to Grow the State appeared first on LewRockwell.