Aggregatore di feed

Brian Dunaway wrote:

Aside from the more specific American Christian peculiarities of thought orbiting this Zionist-induced example, I am reminded me how much American Christians, though far from all, are idolaters for the ravenous beast they worship. One might make a list of the destruction by the United States (and their flaccid minion states) of several nation states, even in the early start to this century alone, whose policies had promoted the relative peace and calm of peoples living together practicing Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. It seems the goal of the United States is to annihilate the sanctity of every foreign Christian.

The gospels, Acts, epistles, and early writings of the ante-Nicene church were replete with encouragement to offer protection, support, and hope to Christian brethren in other communities, regardless of national borders. The American ecclesia more often than not seems to do the opposite – encouraging the beast to consume every space where Christians might find solace.

Many look the other way when presented with evidence of ethnic cleansing or other heinous crimes against faraway and unfamiliar peoples, but might they show at least empathy for their very own brethren in Christ?

Surely ignorance abounds, with the state’s near-infinite resources of power for propaganda, though willful ignorance becomes more and more difficult to accomplish when grave sins are shamelessly committed in broad daylight and in living color. Why is the American Christian default setting for trust more often than not set to The State (Satan), and not The Almighty?

The post American Christian Idolatry appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Telegraph

The post The mask of Davos Man has slipped. The elites will do anything to discredit Brexit appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The Gateway Pundit 

The post Wall Street Journal Releases Birthday Letter from Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The Gateway Pundit

The post Joe Biden Gets $10 Million Advance To Write a Book No One Is Going To Read appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The Gateway Pundit

The post Peter Hotez PANICS After Heavily-Vaxxed Caller Reveals “Worst Experience Ever” Post-Booster appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The government wants us all in their tax prison. “No freedom for you!”

The post Government is Coming for VanLifers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Ivanka SECRETS REVEALED as Trump PAST HAUNTS HIM appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Banned on Youtube: Will the COVID Criminals EVER Face Justice? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Mike Benz: A Different Way To Understand Jeffrey Epstein appeared first on LewRockwell.

Haaretz reported today that illegal Israeli settlers expelled at least 14 Palestinian families in the Deir Alla village in the southern West Bank. The settlers set fire to buildings, assaulted residents, vandalized homes, and threatened to burn down homes unless the residents left.

The Israeli military routinely allows illegal Israeli settlers to carry out these pogroms against the indigenous population of Palestine because the Israeli regime wants to expel as many Palestinians as possible to facilitate eventual Israeli annexation of the West Bank.

Haaretz explained, “Human rights groups and international organizations have reported widespread harassment, land grabs and forced displacement of Palestianians, particularly in Area C, where Israel maintains complete civil and military control.”

The Times of Israel reported that the Knesset voted this week on a non-binding resolution in favor of annexation of the West Bank.  The resolution calls for Israel to “apply Israeli sovereignty, law, judgment and administration to all the areas of Jewish settlement of all kinds in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.”

Ethnic cleansing and apartheid are violations of international law. However, Israel’s racist, fascist, and Kahanist regime could not care less about international law or the rights of the indigenous population of Palestine.

The Israeli regime is able to violate international law in the West Bank because the United States national-security state enthusiastically supports whatever Israel decides to do to the indigenous population of Palestine.

The post Another Pogrom in the West Bank appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Lifesite News

The post Holy Land bishops urge Christians worldwide to help defend faithful from Israeli settler attacks appeared first on LewRockwell.

LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2025, please remember to DONATE TODAY!

1. 3 WORST MEDS, Former Big Pharma Chemist Teaches How the Three Worst Prescription Medications are Harmful to Health & Longevity
2. Over the Counter Natural Cures, Expanded Edition: Take Charge of Your Health in 30 Days with 10 Lifesaving Supplements for under $10
3. The Empire of “The City”: The Secret History of British Financial Power 
   
4. Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition and Modern Medicine
5. Beyond Labels: A Doctor and a Farmer Conquer Food Confusion One Bite at a Time 
6. Home Doctor – Practical Medicine for Every Household
7. Health Myths Exposed: Learn How to Avoid Deadly Health Myths-Add 10 Years to Your Life 
8. The Struggle for Liberty: A Libertarian History of Political Thought
9. Finding the Lost Battalion: Beyond the Rumors, Myths and Legends of America’s Famous WW1 Epic
   
10. Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation
11. Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity 
    
12. Sleep Smarter 
13. Mainspring of Human Progress
14. The Great Mental Models, Volume 1: General Thinking Concepts
15. The Private Production of Defense
16. The Art of Thinking in Graphs: Illustrating the 52 Principles That Shape Our Productivity, Decision-Making, and the Way We Think
17. Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams
18. Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History
    
19. Sleep Apnea Solution: Less Snoring, Less CPAP, Just Sleep
20. The War Between The States: 60 Essential Books 

The post Top 20 Books That LRC Fans Are Reading This Week. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Back in the good old days, before anyone had ever heard of the name Kardashian, the month of August signaled the smart set’s exodus from the French Riviera for cooler climes. The great unwashed, as they were then called, would arrive in droves, prepaid to do so by a socialist French government, hence the hasty departure of the rich and famous.

Actually, I’m exaggerating, as it wasn’t as blatant or as obvious as all that. But August was the month that saw the Riviera become overcrowded, and those of us who had boats rather than houses on the Côte d’Azur floated or drove toward Italy (Venice, to be more precise). I am talking about the late ’50s and the ’60s, just before mass tourism ruined the most beautiful country that ever was, Italy.

“Although I’m fully aware of the ghastly taste the newlyweds exhibited, bad taste is neither illegal nor a sin.”

I cannot describe how wonderful life in Italy used to be for those of us who went to Rome, Florence, Siena, or Venice simply to enjoy ourselves. The hotels were magnificent, the service impeccable, the food the best in the world, and the people among the nicest and friendliest ever. Italians had more style than anyone, and their music was the most romantic, just as their opera was perfect and their beautiful buildings to die for. “Dolce far niente” was the slogan, how sweet it is to do nothing. I remember competing in the Foro Italico, a Mussolini-inspired tennis stadium in Rome, and not caring that much about losing because I knew that a Roman evening promised much more than passing a round in the Italian championships.

People back then dressed to the nines to eat outside, and every beautiful street in Italy was lined with wonderful trattorias serving cheap but very good food. Then all this marvelous life came to an end with the arrival of something even worse than Attila the Hun—mass tourism. Millions of Chinese and Americans flooded the narrow streets of Florence and Rome, photographing everything while marching in step, blocking traffic while arguing over the price of a cheap trinket, and—recently—bringing the city to a halt while taking nonstop selfies on the Spanish steps. I was recently in Rome and watched in horror as the crowds swelled, all taking photos of some luxury ad on the walls while totally ignoring the Keats and Shelley museum on the bottom left of the steps. When I spoke to the lady curator she told me no one had bothered to visit recently, an indicator of the way our culture is heading.

Which brings me to a recent wedding that took place in Venice that had some people upset. The Big Bagel Times headlined it as “The Triumph of Tacky.” (No relation.) The paper asked, what happened to understatement and restraint? Well, I can tell them: I used to attend some very grand balls in Venice, parties given by local nobles such as Countess Volpi in her magnificent palazzo, and Lord Howard, a childhood friend of mine. Lily Volpi may have had a useless son who blew the great fortune she left him, but she really knew how to entertain while keeping it low-key. The perils of income inequality were never obvious in the Venice I knew, with minimalism and quiet luxury in vogue.

I attended two of the grandest Venetian balls of the time—during the early ’60s in the month of September—and what struck me back then was the fact that as we disembarked from our ferrying gondolas to the palazzo Volpi, the crowds began to cheer. Poor Venetians had lined up to look at the rich—there was only one film star, Paul Newman—and applauded. I suppose they were cheering the good luck of the few, I never really figured it out. Actually, I was rather embarrassed.

Which brings me to the recent wedding in Venice, or better yet, the Venetian photo opportunity of the year. As much as those with more understated taste might condemn the Bezos couple for their crassness, I will not. Envy is one of the few sins I am not guilty of. Although I’m fully aware of the ghastly taste the newlyweds exhibited, bad taste is neither illegal nor a sin. Furthermore, capitalism’s unequal distribution of wealth is far better than socialism’s equal distribution of misery. (Thank you, Garry Kasparov.) The ghastly Alexander Soros is spending his even ghastlier father’s money on extreme left-wing causes, but none of the Venetian show-offs displayed inherited wealth, which I truly believe in, by the way.

The over-the-top show in one of the world’s most stunning sites mixed Hollywood vulgarity with sporting heroes, Silicon Valley billionaire freaks and the horrible Kushner man married to The Donald’s daughter. Even the beauty of the setting could not erase the odiousness of some of the guests. But again, so what?

The envious mob claimed that the wedding had reduced the city of Marco Polo to a mere background for the photos of tourists and the rich. This argument sounds pretty pathetic to me. The wedding brought business to shops and restaurants, and the mob hated the fact that hardworking merchants were rewarded. So I ask once again: Why were we applauded fifty years ago and this lot jeered? I’ll tell you why. Envy is the prime mover behind socialism, and back when I was young and attending Venetian balls, people were too poor and busy working to embrace socialism.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post C’est la Garish appeared first on LewRockwell.

In 2003, a group of suited men with elite credentials stood before the world and insisted that history could be bent toward freedom—if only America would use its unmatched power to reshape the Middle East. They were idealists, they said. Liberators. But behind their words lay something older, colder: the conviction that a centralized elite could manage the world better than the people themselves.

Two decades later, the suits have changed. Hoodies and Patagonia vests now serve the same function. The men speak not of Baghdad, but of Washington. Their voices now come not from think tanks, but from a podcast with millions of followers and political candidates on speed dial.

Today’s visionaries speak of sovereignty, localism, and common-sense capitalism. But scratch the surface, and a familiar ambition gleams through: the desire to direct from above, to architect the future through force—soft, algorithmic, often subsidized, but force nonetheless.

The so-called “tech bros” of Silicon Valley—once courted by Obama-era Democrats and praised as the vanguard of global progressivism—have not abandoned statism. They have repurposed it. Many of these same figures were instrumental in ushering in the era of digital progressivism: championing woke ideology, amplifying Black Lives Matter narratives across tech platforms, and aligning with the federal government to enforce speech codes during the COVID-19 pandemic. They partnered with agencies and policymakers to suppress dissenting views about mRNA vaccines, lockdowns, and race-related issues—often using Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as semi-official censors. What began as progressive moralism became a framework for control—one that has since been redirected toward nationalist ends. The ideological tools of the technocratic left—central planning, industrial policy, and moralized narratives of progress—have been reforged in nationalist rhetoric. Their microphones now hum with a new kind of Manifest Destiny, one that praises border security and criticizes DEI, but demands state-backed investment in chip fabs, AI labs, and critical infrastructure.

It is not a retreat from power. It is a redirection of it.

Nowhere is this transformation clearer than in the figure of David O. Sacks, venture capitalist, PayPal Mafia alumnus, co-founder of Craft Ventures, and co-host of the All-In Podcast. Once a libertarian-leaning entrepreneur, Sacks has emerged as one of Silicon Valley’s most vocal proponents of Donald Trump’s return to power.

In the summer of 2024, Sacks co-hosted a high-profile fundraiser for Trump in San Francisco, raising millions from a crowd that would’ve been unthinkable just a decade earlier—tech executives, startup founders, crypto capitalists. When asked why, Sacks didn’t demur. Trump, he said, was the only candidate serious about national security, restoring economic competitiveness, and fighting the “woke mind virus” infecting America’s institutions.

But beyond culture war rhetoric, Sacks has become an articulate advocate for industrial policy and strategic statism—the very policies conservatives once viewed as anathema. On the All-In Podcast, he regularly calls for reshoring supply chains, investing in “national champion” technologies, and using the state to counter China’s rise. His critiques of Big Government are now carefully targeted: not against power itself, but against the wrong wielders of it.

In this way, Sacks exemplifies a broader shift in elite technocratic ideology: not away from centralized control, but toward a different narrative justifying it. On December 5, 2024, President Trump officially named Sacks the White House AI & Crypto Czar—a part-time advisory role overseeing artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policy. His growing influence within Trump-aligned technology strategy signals more than symbolic recognition: it formalizes a channel through which Silicon Valley now directly helps shape federal power.

There is a precedent. In the early 2000s, neoconservatives—many of them disillusioned Democrats—found a new home in the Republican Party. They did not seek to dismantle the state, but to redirect its energies. With the language of liberty and the posture of patriotism, they convinced conservatives to embrace big government—abroad. The result: regime change wars, ballooning deficits, and an empire of surveillance.

They were, as the cuckoo bird is to the nest, indistinguishable until it was too late. The cuckoo lays its egg among those of another bird, matching the shell pattern so precisely that the host parent cannot tell the difference. When the cuckoo chick hatches, it instinctively pushes the host’s real offspring out of the nest—monopolizing food, attention, and resources. The parent bird, none the wiser, feeds and nurtures the imposter at the cost of its own future. So too did the neoconservatives nest themselves within the conservative movement—redefining its values, consuming its energy, and displacing its original aims.

Today, the All-In Podcast crew—Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, and David Friedberg—play a similar role. Their style is breezy and self-deprecating, their arguments often persuasive, their appeal bipartisan. They criticize the managerial state while building a roadmap for a new one. They reject progressivism while quietly constructing a technocratic nationalism—one where the levers of federal power are still pulled, just by different hands.

The modern policy playbook is no longer about regulation vs. deregulation. It is about strategic partnerships—between defense agencies and AI firms, between subsidy packages and chip fabs, between national ambition and private capital. This marks a sharp departure from the Reagan-era model of free-market conservatism, which emphasized deregulation, competition, and minimal state interference. Where conservatives once resisted centralized planning, today’s tech-aligned nationalists embrace it as a tool of economic strategy and geopolitical leverage.

Sacks and others make no effort to hide this—they celebrate it. In fact, the neo-MAGA wing of the tech world—including Sacks and his growing legion of techno-patriots—trumpet the absolute necessity of American global domination. For them, innovation and industrial policy are not just domestic tools—they are geopolitical weapons to ensure that the United States remains the unrivaled leader on the world stage. The CHIPS Act is deemed necessary. AI export controls? Essential. A national tech agenda? Long overdue.

To the casual listener, this sounds like common sense. But as detailed in The Velvet Fist, this approach recasts government from referee to chief architect of the economy. It is not the free market. It is not socialism. It is a techno-corporatist model, wrapped in patriotic branding, executed by high-functioning elites, and sold as “realism.”

Switzerland stands in quiet contrast. Its decentralized, neutral model produces one of the world’s most prosperous societies without central planning or military-industrial ambitions. It competes through excellence, not through coercive scale. Some will argue that Switzerland still engages in state initiative and centralization—but to equate a nation of fewer than 9 million with the United States, a country of over 340 million, is to miss the point. Switzerland does not need to be, nor does it aspire to be, a global hegemon to secure its prosperity and stability. It offers a glimpse of what America once claimed to be—and what Silicon Valley’s new mandarins have long since abandoned.

Bitcoin began as a libertarian rebellion against centralized monetary authority. It promised to liberate individuals from fiat currency, inflation, and central banking. David Sacks once praised these values, as did many in the crypto venture world. But today, the narrative has shifted. Bitcoin now thrives on regulatory clarity, institutional custody, and platform compliance. The revolution has become an industry—one increasingly dependent on state protection. And yet, despite their alignment with progressive ideology and federal authority, the tech elite failed to usher in an era where only woke narratives and scientific consensus could reign unchallenged. The American public pushed back—on speech restrictions, medical mandates, and ideological conformity. Now, the same technology leaders are eyeing the capabilities of AI. What lesson did they learn? Perhaps they believe that with the right nuclear-powered tech stack—anchored by artificial intelligence and state alignment—they might yet summon the world they intended all along.

What began in rebellion is ending in integration. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once warned that the state “cannot deliver moral purpose—only security.” But in the anxiety of digital life, AI disruption, and geopolitical fragmentation, men like David O. Sacks now look to the state to do both.

This is not hypocrisy. It is transformation.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn understood something most moderns forget: that central planning is not only inefficient, it is dangerous to the soul of a society. He warned that when elites begin to see themselves as moral engineers, the line between guidance and coercion fades.

In America today, we are witnessing a quiet but profound shift. A new ruling class—draped in innovation, rationalism, and patriotic vigor—is clenching its grip on the levers of statecraft. The neoconservatives once did this in the name of freedom abroad. Today’s technocrats do it in the name of sovereignty at home. Both promise strength. Both deliver control.

David Sacks and his peers are not outliers. They are archetypes of a new era, where ideology is downstream of capability, and capability is the new moral currency. As Solzhenitsyn warned: when a society abandons truth in exchange for comfort or control, it loses the foundation of liberty itself.

The hand that once wrote code to liberate the individual now directs policy to command the collective.

And the glove is starting to clench.

The post The Hand Inside the Glove: How Silicon Valley’s New Statism Mirrors the Neoconservative Turn appeared first on LewRockwell.

Jesus loves the little children

All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

Lyrics from Jesus Loves The Little Children by Woolston and Root

This famous children’s song written in the late 1800s and first published in 1913, does not say that Jesus loves all the children except for those living in Gaza. It says all children, even the little ones of Gaza, are precious to Jesus.

Thus, it is awfully hard to believe, and especially to understand, why so many good Christians could condone, much less even support, the killing and starvation of thousands of little children by Israel in Gaza.

On July 23, the Doctors Without Borders published a statement which said “ as the Israeli‘s governments’s siege starves the people of Gaza…. Just outside Gaza, in warehouses – and even within Gaza itself – tons of food, clean water, medical supplies, shelter items and fuel sit untouched with humanitarian organizations blocked from accessing or delivering it.”

The statement added: “the government of Israel’s restrictions, delays and fragmentation under its total seige have created chaos, starvation, and death. An aid worker…. spoke of the devastating impact on children: children tell their parents they want to go to heaven, because at least heaven has food.“

Sen. Ted Cruz said on Tucker Carlson‘s podcast that he supported what Israel is doing because the Bible says to bless Israel. When Carlson asked him where it says that in the Bible, Cruz became very flustered and obviously didn’t know where it was. Many Christians also mistakenly believe as Cruz said he did.

However, the Bible instructs people to bless Israel; It does not say people should bless Israel’s government or agree with everything it does. Hundreds of thousands of Jews, possibly a few million, around the world do not support what the Israeli government is doing in Gaza.

There is much more to the United States than our federal government. People can easily love this country, but oppose and even criticize what our government sometimes does.

It is ridiculous for Americans to believe that they can criticize our own government, but they cannot criticize the government of Israel and even the slightest way.

In the same way, there is much more to Israel than its government. People can bless and even love Israel without agreeing with its slaughter of the Palestinian people.

Meanwhile, the evil Netanyahu‘s killing and starving of the people in Gaza goes on and on. Unfortunately, the newest Republican in the US house, Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, on July 22 wrote on his official Congress account, that the Palestinians in Gaza should “starve away.”

On that same day, the United Nations put out a statement which said “as of July 21, we have recorded 1,054 people killed in Gaza while trying to get food….288 near UN and other humanitarian organizations’ aid convoys”

It’s statement was accompanied by a photo of mourners carrying the shrouded body of a 14-year-old boy who had died of starvation.

On July 20, the Gaza Health Ministry  said 124 people were killed in the 24 hour period that had just passed.

Glenn Greenwald, the conservative journalist, wrote on X on July 22: “people collapsing in the street with organ failure and dying in Gaza due to extreme malnutrition because Israel blocks world organizations from delivering food into Gaza.“ He added that Israel “routinely massacres Gazans in line for tiny rations.“

Another song that is probably one of the first that children learn is “Jesus loves me“ it’s well – known lyrics say:

Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Little ones to him belong
They are weak, but he is strong

It is long past the time when Christians who claim to be followers of Jesus should have been speaking out against Israel’s killing and starvation of children in Gaza. But it is better late than never.

The post Gaza Children: ‘At Least Heaven Has Food’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Under massive pressure from his MAGA base, President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to release grand jury testimony regarding the Epstein case. For a whole bunch of reasons, don’t expect anything of substance to come out of this order. It’s a smokescreen to try and mollify MAGA without letting the real truth come out. I doubt that the order is even legal.

Another example of the government coverup of the Epstein case is that House Speaker Mike Johnson shut down the House early this week for its August recess in order to avert growing pressure inside Congress (from both parties) to release the Epstein files.

From Axios:

House Republicans have virtually stopped work on all major legislation leading up to their six-week summer recess to avoid taking votes on forcing the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Furthermore, it is reported that Bondi told Trump this spring that he was named in the Epstein files along with other high-profile figures.

There is probably no one who has done more investigative research into the Epstein case than historian Ryan Dawson. He recently sat down with Judge Andrew Napolitano for an interview regarding the matter. I think it’s very important for readers to read a transcript of this bombshell interview.

Here are excerpts of that interview:

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Give us the big picture here before we get into the latest raging dispute over here in the states about the Justice Department’s absurd contention that the client list doesn’t exist. Give us the big picture. Who was Epstein? How did he make his money? And what went on on that island?

Ryan Dawson: Well, it’s “islands” plural, actually. So, a lot of people, they know about Little St. Jeffries. He also bought Greater St. Jeffries. And so that is, every time I hear “the island,” people need to understand that the activity that went on on those islands also happened in Florida and New York and New Mexico and Ohio and in Paris. He had properties all over the place. And the pedophilia and other acts and trafficking happened in all those locations. And that started long before he had his islands. It also happened on St. Thomas. He had an office in St. Thomas, and he had half the government there working for him.

Judge Nap: Wow. What was his source of wealth? How is it that he had a home in Paris and New York City and that he owned, literally owned, these islands?

Dawson: In the beginning it was mostly Les Wexner. I can give you a background on him too. Les Wexner. I mean, sweetheart deal aside, you can still boycott Victoria’s Secret. You can boycott Seagram’s liquor. You can at least avoid the products of the people involved in this. Plus, they’re prominent Zionists that support genocide and shooting babies anyway. So, that’s enough reason, in league with Jeffrey Epstein.

He got a lot of money principally from I’d say his top three, well, obviously Wexner and Bronfman and then Leon Black and then Glenn Dubin. That was his principal financing.  And then a lot of it he got illegally. And his companies he was able to get huge tax breaks for. For example, in the Virgin Islands, $300 million in tax breaks simply by bribing or blackmailing. We don’t know which one but using his skills to get the legislators to change the rules for him.

Judge Nap: Let’s go to the attorney general. Did she fail to prosecute Epstein and others for crimes committed under her jurisdiction when she was the attorney general of the state of Florida?

Dawson: She did. Well, it’s hard to know how much her arm was twisted. Everybody (except for Donald Jr., I guess) in those clips when they were asked, “What’s important to you?” What did they say? Their relationship with Israel. That’s all they care about.

They probably looked at the list, found out it went back to Israel, and that was it. The list was gone. And the list was gone the day Netanyahu came to visit. Again, he said, “Get rid of it.” And they did.

Judge Nap: What is the connection to Israel? Was Epstein a Mossad asset?

Dawson: A thousand percent he was. First off, Epstein did not create this kompromat ring. He walked into a preexisting nexus. They’ve been doing this. And if anybody’s like, “Oh, our greatest ally. Would Israel really run an operation that included child rape?” Israel shoots children. Israel shoots people in line begging for food. And Israel is the go-to haven for pedophile refugees. They all know, if you get caught, you can flee to Israel and get away with it.

Judge Nap: Was he [Epstein] entrapping people for Israel’s political purposes? Was he a paid Mossad agent? Was he passing small talk that he had with whomever? You mentioned Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson (who’s now dead). Was he passing that information on to his Israeli superiors?

Dawson: Israel has everything he had. They were supposed to be spying on US science and tech and stealing trade secrets, and they did. The kompromat was part of that operation. But Epstein was a money launderer. He would just use blackmail on tax collectors and legislators and get the rules changed.

Judge Nap: What was Attorney General Bondi referring to when she told Fox News the list was on her desk?

Dawson: I don’t think she had looked at it. They all assumed there was a list because online, like in the Twitter sphere, everyone talks about the list. There never was a list. The only list is the list I made. I mean, Maxwell would have a lot of it.

So, she said, “It’s there for review.” So, apparently, they hadn’t reviewed it. Why even bring it up if you’re going to rug pull like this?

This all happened in Trump’s first term. His son made a mistake when he said, “Nobody’s been arrested.” Four people were arrested. Three of them are dead. Jean-Luc Brunel was arrested. He apparently killed himself in a jail in Paris. That’s how I first got on to Epstein was following Jean-Luc Brunel. There was even a 60 Minutes piece about him probably 30 years ago. He was a modeling agent. First, he started at Karin Models, which is straight out of Tel Aviv. He got in a little trouble. They renamed it MC Square, and then he opened offices in America. This is somebody that trafficked women to Epstein, and Epstein trafficked women to him. He was arrested, and he did go to jail. This person is part of this Mossad nexus.

Now, you asked me earlier, “Well, how do we know he was Mossad?” A lot of people will point to, “Well, Acosta said this and that.” People said that Acosta said that “I was told to back off, that he’s intelligence.”

Judge Nap: Now, Acosta is the former U.S. attorney in Florida who prosecuted (I say in quotes; it really went nowhere) Epstein, who became the Secretary of Labor in Trump’s first term. Do I have that correct?

Dawson: That’s true. It is said that he said, “I was told to back off. This guy is intelligence and above my pay grade.”

Judge Nap: Does Benjamin Netanyahu fear the revelation of a list of Epstein’s clients?

Dawson: Epstein knew four Israeli prime ministers. He knew Peres. He knew Ehud Barak. He knew Ehud Olmert. He also knew Moshe Katsav, the president of Israel. He knew Netanyahu. Moshe Katsav got convicted of rape in Israel, an Israeli president. He was the president when Ehud Barak was the prime minister.

And Ehud Barak is witnessed outside of Jeffrey’s rape mansion in New York going in as a bunch of little kids are going in there with him. And he denies, “I never saw him with the girls.” He’s a liar.

And he was financed by Wexner and Bronfman as well. See, Les Wexner has something called The Wexner Foundation. And Jeffrey Epstein was put on the board of trustees of the foundation.

There’s a lot of Jewish diaspora that donate to candidates in Israel who don’t live in Israel. They do it through advertising funds. It’s the same workarounds that happen in America. And through this security firm called Reporty, which got renamed to Carbyne, millions of dollars went to Ehud Barak’s campaign from The Wexner Foundation. He also got a lot of money from Charles Bronfman of Seagram’s Liquor fame that’s tied to John McCain and The Lincoln Project. Charles Bronfman got a little finger waving for that. But this is the head of the—they’ve changed the name, but at the time it was the United Jewish Appeal.

The mirror to that was the United Israel Appeal. That was set up by a Haganah terrorist, Abba Hillel Silver, and Ted Kulik was part of that too. These are the people that were illegally smuggling weapons to early Israel, including highly enriched uranium. But that was out of the Jewish Agency.

Now the very first president of The Wexner Foundation that Wexner co-set that up with was Rabbi Herbert Freeman, who was also on the UJA, a hardcore Zionist with a Haganah terrorist.

So, Wexner has for many decades been involved with Zionist projects. So, financing Barak and Epstein is nothing for him. He is part of a group that he co-created called the Mega Group full of these donors, which is really just the second generation from the Sonneborn Institute that was set up by Rudolf Sonneborn and David Ben-Gurion.

Judge Nap: When you went through these files—how did you get the files, by the way? Is this public information?

Dawson: I’d say 90% of it is. I got some things straight from victims. You can look at the court cases. You can look at J.P. Morgan versus Jane Doe and just read them. You can look at Virginia Frey’s testimony, Maria Farmer—who’s watching right now, by the way. Shout out to Maria and every other victim. I’m trying to get some closure here. They’ll tell you, and they also told in the cases, what had happened to them.

It’s just people are waiting for someone on TV to summarize it for them. I promise you, that’s never, ever going to happen. I have a list right here. There’s over a dozen billionaires (with a “b”) on that list. And I know that I don’t have the whole list. This is just what I can prove.

Judge Nap: Are there any people on that list who are current public officials in the United States?

Dawson: Yes, but they mostly did not blackmail politicians. They blackmailed the donor class. Because if you have the donor class, you have everybody under them. So, you don’t really need a low-level congressman or senator. When you have the richest people in the world, you control everything.

They already run most of Congress through AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].

Here is the Larry Johnson article in which he shows a partial list of Epstein clients which was published by Dawson.

Aside from the Israeli genocide in Gaza, the Epstein case is by far the most horrific assault against humanity, global peace and the sovereignty of the United States in the twenty-first century. And, yes, the Gaza genocide and the Epstein case are joined at the hip.

The Epstein child-rape global nexus—and the powerful U.S. personalities entrapped in this web of perversion—is one of the main influences accommodating and facilitating America’s participation not only in Israel’s genocide in Gaza but in its wars against the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran. The other major influences are the military-industrial complex, the Israel lobby and evangelical pastors and churches.

Trump’s connection to and participation with Jeffrey Epstein’s pernicious operation will never be known to us. You can take that to the bank.

It is common knowledge that Trump and Epstein were friends and that Trump hosted Epstein at Mar-a-Lago and traveled with Epstein on his jet. But as with all of the political and financial elite, the truth of their sordid affairs will never be revealed. They have too much power. The principle of equal justice under the law upon which America was founded has been destroyed for quite some time—at least since the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

I pray for Ryan Dawson’s safety.

The one thing about the whole Epstein matter that is crystal clear is that Epstein’s nefarious network was the handiwork of the Israeli Mossad. To requote Paul Craig Robert’s column posted on LewRockwell.com:

The probable Epstein story is that Israel, knowing of the sexual perversion rife among the American leadership class, set up Epstein to ensnare those who could be blackmailed to conform American policies with Israel’s interest.  How else do we explain the US spending the 21st century fighting wars for Israel, protecting and enabling Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, passing laws that protect Israel from protests and boycotts and preventing Americans from stating the truth about Israel?

America has been the instrument of Israeli aggression.  Israel has so much blackmail power over the American ruling class that the United States of America is locked into its role as Israel’s agent.

Amen, Craig!

And I hold fast to my contention that the most significant power that is aiding and abetting Israel’s chokehold over the United States is the fallacious Scofield Dispensationalist prophecy doctrines within evangelicalism.

The good news is that millions of Americans are waking up to this fanciful fallacy.

I predict that in another ten to twenty years (maybe sooner), the vast majority of Americans—in and out of church—will totally reject Christian Zionism, and the stranglehold it has on America’s religious and political institutions will be broken.

I pray I will live long enough to see it.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Top Epstein Historian Blows the Whistle appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dear Secretary Bessent,

I read with great interest your July 21 comment at the Federal Reserve Capital Conference that: “What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful. . . . All of these Ph.D.s over there, I don’t know what they do. . . . This is like Universal Basic Income for academic economists.”

Having been an academic Ph.D. economist for forty-one years I believe I can offer a little insight into whether the Fed has been successful (it unequivocally has not), as well as what “All of these Ph.D.’s over there” do. There is a mountain of academic research that shows that the Fed has failed on all counts. It has not only failed, but has made the economy far more unstable and with more price inflation than there was before the Fed existed, for one thing.

As for what all those Fed economists do, well, their Job Number One is to obfuscate these failures with their writings and speeches and to do their best to censor Fed Critics. Furthermore, since every Fed economist is a government bureaucrat, they all do what all government bureaucrats do: They are relentless lobbyists for bigger budgets, more power, a bigger staff, and more pay and perquisites for Fed employees. They also focus much of their research on the left-wing political fads of the day, such as “climate change,” racism, gender, inequality, and other projects of the political Left.

As for perquisites, I understand that you are a bit critical of the Fed’s spending $2.5 billion on renovations to its headquarters building in Washington, DC. Not for a new building, but for renovations of their already palatial headquarters. To put this into perspective, the cost of building Trump Tower (in the early 1980s), adjusted for inflation, was about $921 million. That’s building, not renovating. And people wonder why the Fed has never acquiesced in being audited. There is a large literature in the economics subdiscipline of public choice about how government bureaucracies tend to be budget maximizers, for that it show bureaucrats can personally benefit from the growth of government—bigger budgets means more prospects for higher pay, promotions, larger staffs, and myriad perquisites such as multi-billion-dollar buildings to work in. The Fed would appear to be the Mother of All Budget-Maximizing Government Bureaucracies. (Note that “budget maximizing” is a synonym for “cost maximizing,” the opposite of what every successful private business strives to do).

Secretary Bessent, I recommend that you read a study by Lawrence H. White, William Lastrapes, and George Selgin “commemorating” the centennial of the Fed entitled “Has the Fed Been a Failure?” These authors surveyed 195 peer-reviewed academic publications about the Fed’s performance from an historical perspective. On the Fed’s obligation to control inflation, they concluded that the Fed “has allowed the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar . . . to fall dramatically. A consumer basket [of goods] selling for $100 in 1790 cost only slightly more, at $108, than its equivalent in 1913 (the year of the Fed’s founding). But thereafter the price soared, reaching $2,422 in 2008.”

The highest annual rates of price inflation since the Civil War occurred “under the Fed’s watch,” these authors point out, referring to the high inflation rates of 1973-1975 and 1978-1980. They also concluded that prices became less predictable after the Fed was created, making economic calculation more difficult. Such uncertainty tends to stifle business investment because many businesses delay their plans if they are unsure of what their costs are going to be.

They cite the research of President Obama’s chief economist, Professor Christina Romer of the University of California at Berkeley, which shows that the business cycle was more volatile after the Fed was created than it was in the previous decades after the Civil War. The Fed is also responsible for the never-ending economic crises caused by its own policies, such as the ones we saw in 1953, 1957, 1960, 1969, 1973,1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008, and 2020. Not to mention causing a depression in 1920 shortly after it was created, and fueling the stock market crash of 1929 less than a decade later. The Fed’s response to these crashes caused by its explosive monetary growth is always even more explosive monetary growth that fuels the next crash down the road.

The Fed employs around 500 of those academic economists you alluded to, and they compose a large army of Fed apologists and propagandists whose job is to invent fanciful theories in defense of the Fed, and to ignore research that is critical of the Fed. In 2005, Professor Lawrence H. White published a peer-reviewed journal article that highlighted the dominance of Fed-related (and often paid) economists in the field of monetary economics. In addition to its 500 or so academic economists on the Fed payroll, the Fed invites hundreds more to its conferences. Professor White found that 74 percent of all academic articles on monetary policy published by American economists in the year of his study were either in Fed-published journals or co-authored by Fed economists. As Milton Friedman once said, “If you want to advance in the field of monetary research. . . you would be disinclined to criticize the major employer in the field.”

Today’s Fed is just another Washington, DC, government-funded appendage of the Democrat party for the most part. In an Independent Review article entitled “Political Affiliations of Federal Reserve Economists,” Professor Emre Kuvvet found that the Democrat-to-Republican ratio at the Fed’s Board of Governors is 48.5:1. The Democrat-to-Republican ratio of Fed Board of Governor economists “in leadership positions” is 45:1. The Fed’s district banks are just as biased. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has twelve Democrats and one Republican economist. The Dallas Fed has sixteen Democrats and two Republican economists. The Philadelphia Fed has thirty-nine Democrat and five Republican economists. It is little wonder that Professor Kuvvet reports that research published by the regional Fed banks has become dominated by the topics of “race, gender, climate change, and inequality.” All of this is done by an institution that doggedly claims to be independent of politics!

When Fed economists are not busy publishing papers about climate change and “gender issues,” they are defending the massive central planning machinery of the Fed that regulates virtually all financial transactions of any kind, Soviet style. You mentioned in your July 21 speech that just one regulatory change in the Community Reinvestment Act recently included 60,000 words.

Perhaps the best example of this Soviet-style, central planning mindset that is inherent in the Fed is its insistence that one man—the Fed chairman—should have such influence as he has on interest rates. Interest rates should be set by supply and demand of loanable funds, incorporating the rates of time preference of individuals, and not by a Wizard-of-Oz-type character whose pronouncements keep the entire financial world sitting on the edges of its seats for every utterance of The Great Oz.

We have abolished central banks three times in our history—the Bank of North America, the First Bank of the United States, and the Second Bank of the United States. Today’s central bank is infinitely more insidious than the first three, for it is armed with armies of regulators, central planners, and propagandists and is arguably the largest governmental central planning bureaucracy on the planet, three-and-a-half decades after central planning was finally and conclusively discredited—or so we thought—with the worldwide collapse of socialism in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Finally, you were right to include that the Fed’s large stable of academic economists is a good example of “Universal Basic Income for academic economists.”

Sincerely,

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, President, The Mises Institute

The post An Open Letter to Treasury Secretary Bessent appeared first on LewRockwell.

Never underestimate the incoming tsunami of disruptive “analysis” and predictive programming already embedded in the Hybrid War on China – and the larger war on BRICS.

Never underestimate the incoming tsunami of disruptive “analysis” and predictive programming already embedded in the Hybrid War on China – and the larger war on BRICS.

Cue to the latest 128-page report by the Hudson Institute in D.C. titled oh so prophetically, China After Communism: Preparing for a Post-CCP China.

You are fully entitled to react in a “Knights Who Say ‘Ni!’” Monty Pythonish way when confronting this inane absurdity. But make no mistake, they take it very seriously. US Think Tankland is a master of telegraphing regime change dreams and existential fears years in advance, in excruciating detail.

That was the case of that tawdry RAND report on blowing up Russia on several fronts, or that tawdry Brookings report on dismembering Persia, actually Iran. Now it’s the turn of the most powerful of the new Primakov triangle (RIC) in BRICS: China.

They are really playing ‘Light my Fire’ on steroids, believing a “sudden regime collapse in China is not entirely unthinkable.” They hark back to the old OSS – the precursor to the CIA – and its ops in China during WWII to suggest that “US special operations forces (SOF) can help stabilize a post-CCP China.”

Mediocre Sinophobe Extraordinaire Gordon Chang advises D.C. to “get American businesses and citizens out of China” and to “remove” Beijing “entities” from important sectors of the US economy.

There’s the inevitable call for the US to “protect human rights during a transitional period” and US intervention “to prevent ethnic violence, civil wars, and political retribution, with a special focus on China’s five autonomous regions – Guangxi, Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Ningxia.” Yes, let’s build a Disneyland in Tibet.

After the color revolution/regime change op is on a roll, “post-Communist China can establish a constitutional democracy and draft a new constitution”. All supervised by the Empire of Chaos, of course, which will define “China’s relationship with Taiwan” and even “what the new country’s name should be”.

The high-speed train of yuan internationalization

It will be a blast to observe the reaction of Chinese citizens on Weibo, Tik Tok and Guancha to this oh so benign demolition enterprise. Of course this document cannot be taken seriously as a recommended strategic policy. It barely qualifies as shabby psy ops/shallow propaganda, carrying several embedded PhDs in Cognitive Dissonance.

The target is not Chinese public opinion, but actually masses of semi-illiterate Americans – brainwashed 24/7 for eons on the threat posed by evil commies. And evil Russkies. And “the ayatollahs”.

Talk about Clash of Civilizations for sub-dummies.

I propose as a realist antidote our recent conversation hosted by Guancha in Shanghai, involving Professor Huang Jing, Tricontinental founder Vijay Prashad and myself on the larger war of the Empire of Chaos against China and BRICS.

Add to it some fine observations by Miao Yanliang, who’s now chief strategist at the CICC investment bank, formerly with the China State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), part of the People’s Bank of China, and a connoisseur of the Empire, as he got his PhD in Princeton.

Miao recently delivered a quite intriguing speech at Peking University, published as a CICC report in early June.

So let’s start with de-dolarization. Miao argues that “building a multipolar currency system requires policy coordination and exchange rate flexibility among major currency-issuing economies.” Now ‘two key obstacles that once constrained the internationalisation of the renminbi—high US interest rates and persistent depreciation expectations during periods of trade tension—have begun to reverse.”

Translation: from now on China has a wealth of possibilities to leverage its global trade to promote the internationalization of the yuan.

On the American ability to maintain the US dollar’s reserve currency status, Miao points to two factors: “whether the United States can continue to lead the technological revolution”; and “whether it can preserve the advantages of its financial system, such as the Federal Reserve’s independence and the self-regulating and corrective capabilities of its financial markets.”

Yet what’s accelerating now is rather the “fragmentation of the international monetary system”. So we should expect increased use of yuan in payment settlements and as “a store of value”; that’s already happening all across BRICS.

Miao points to the key vector: the yuan is now “a low-interest currency, while the US dollar is high-interest.” Trump 2.0 tariffs “on all countries have contributed to the appreciation” of the yuan.

This high-speed train is now leaving the station: “By leveraging China’s manufacturing strengths in sectors such as machinery, electronics, and new energy equipment”, China is encouraging BRICS nations and partners to use the yuan “for trade settlement, thereby creating a self-sustaining cycle” driven by “real trade demand.”

This is the system those clowns want to regime-change.

They never learn

Well, they did not learn anything out of the collective West humiliation in the proxy war in Ukraine. A top old school hand of the Deep State, now retired, and familiar with the glory days of the OSS, sums it all up. Relevant excerpts of our conversation:

“The US and Europe are already at war with Russia and they are losing it. The US has 20,000 armed troops in Europe to face Russia. NATO forces are largely a figment of the imagination.

Ukraine is nothing but a front in the US battle for control of the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder. The US cannot supply both Israel and Europe at the same time. It has overstretched itself. As for Europe, it has no army of any consequence and most of its equipment is antiquated. All of it is pure bluff.”

He adds, “the Europeans are waking up to the fact that the US has a moat around it so that it can be reached only by ICBMs and submarine missiles but Europe is in itself indefensible as short range conventional missiles can destroy it. Nukes are not required to destroy Europe in one day but a rain of Russian missiles.”

Now compare that with Russia’s top negotiator in the Istanbul kabuki, historian Medinsky, when asked whether Moscow fears new sanctions by the EU and the US:

“This is not a question for us, not for the negotiating group. I can tell you this. After the revolution and civil war in 1920, again, another historical reference, we had not only sanctions, we had an absolute diplomatic and economic blockade of Soviet Russia from everyone. Everyone! It did not prevent us from winning World War II (…) Nothing will prevent Russia from winning now, The only question is the price of victory and the time it takes to achieve it.”

This is something that will never sink in amongst Think Tankland in D.C. As much as the technological accomplishments – now visible – of the Made in China 2025 plan will never sink in.

Enter bluster, hubris, the regime change obsession – and worse. Because if the US ruling class psycho killers finally conclude they cannot maintain their unilateral world hegemony even via war, they will abandon their cherished Think Tankland “reports” for good and even resort, in despair, to a Samson option.

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

The post Destroy Russia. Fail? No Problem: Let’s Destroy China! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Every now and then, regardless of how difficult things are or how much you begin to doubt what you are doing, you will come across something that reminds you that what you are doing matters and you need to continue.

That happened to me today when I saw a recent JAMA study surveying pregnant mothers and parents of young children, which found:

That study, in turn, concluded with:

Given the high decisional uncertainty during pregnancy about vaccinating children after birth, there may be value in intervening during pregnancy to proactively support families with childhood vaccination decisions.

As COVID had been such a severe overreach, I had hoped that the COVID cartel’s greed would awaken people to the issues with vaccination and prompt significant skepticism against the existing pediatric vaccines. However, I did not expect such a large shift to occur so quickly. To briefly put this in context:

First, while there has been an overall loss of trust in vaccination (which I consider to be absolutely profound), the drop in confidence is much greater among the youngest generation, who are actually making the decisions to vaccinate their children. Consider for example, the results of this January survey, where far more than 37% of all Americans fully trusted and intended to follow the CDC schedule.

Second, a total of 37% of American parents fully trust the schedule, which represents a massive drop compared to the historical baseline. Specifically:

• In 2000, 19% of parents had “concerns about vaccines”
• In 2003, 28% of parents had “vaccine hesitancy,” of whom approximately two-thirds delayed or refused only certain vaccines.
• In 2009, 50% of parents had “concerns about vaccines” and 11.5% had refused at least one vaccine for their child (most commonly refusing the injurious HPV vaccine)
• In 2010, 89% of pediatricians reported at least one vaccine refusal by a parent each month, with yearly childhood flu shots being the most commonly refused vaccine.
• In 2011, 13% of parents followed an alternative vaccine schedule (e.g., skipping or delaying some vaccines)—most of whom had originally followed the CDC schedule, along with 2.2% skipped all vaccines.
• In 2013, 9% of parents declined or postponed all immunizations, and 32% had concerns about vaccine safety.

The key context to understand about these figures is that they were alarming to the medical field, as their baseline had been to expect almost all parents would vaccinate without complaining and if someone dared to step out of line by doing something as simple as delaying vaccines (as more vaccines close together at a young age increases the likelihood of an injury) they were crucified by the medical field and often lost their licenses. As such, if you consider the figures they were alarmed by, and then compare them to the current reality, the difference is essentially “night and day.”

Third, a major way vaccine compliance is enforced is through social pressure (e.g., “everyone else is doing it, so you must be crazy or a bad parent if you aren’t”) and mandates. Both of these are predicated on the majority of the population being vaccinated, which essentially is why the medical industry was so concerned about vaccine use dropping below 90%.

As such, I believe a key reason why so many unconscionable and aggressive childhood mandates were pushed across America in 2019 (e.g., the California ones), despite widespread public protest, was because the vaccine industry realized they were losing the majority necessary to justify (an unscientific and unconscionable) vaccine program and hence had to default to forcing them to vaccinate.

Note: in 2020, I realized a very aggressive marketing campaign was being made for the COVID vaccines which would “save us from the lockdowns.” Because of that, I concluded that the vaccine campaign would go through a series of escalating stages (e.g., mass promoting the vaccine as a miracle then selling it on scarcity, remove the scarcity to catch everyone else who’d been pulled in, give gifts for vaccinating, create soft mandates through social restrictions on visiting public areas or businesses, introduce hard mandates at certain companies, create nationwide mandates). This was because the later mandates were unviable unless most of the population was already vaccinated (e.g., if 10% of America was vaccinated, restaurants would never ban unvaccinated customers), so it was critical to vaccinate as many people as possible before trying to push the previously inconceivable workplace mandates. In parallel, one of the only things which has ever gotten California to back down on certain school mandates (e.g., for the COVID vaccines) was so many parents refusing and being willing to pull their kids out of the schools that the state could not afford to lose the Federal Education dollars that would have resulted in.

Fourth, if you look at the recent July results, you will notice that many parents are, to varying degrees, “undecided.” What this means is that we have a real chance to permanently change the vaccine paradigm if we can provide both direct stories of tragic vaccine injuries (especially if the injured party is within the parent’s community) and if we can continue to provide trustworthy and balanced information that clearly shows the actual risks and benefits of vaccinations.

Many like me are doing that, and I believe we are having a real impact. More importantly, RFK Jr. is working with the HHS to release the gold standard evidence on vaccine injury, and once that comes out, the foundation has been laid for those rejecting vaccines to become the majority. This is extremely important, particularly since many are still advocating for vaccine mandates (e.g., I’ve received numerous concerned emails from readers that Hawaii’s left-wing physician governor will soon remove religious exemptions and hence mandate them,1,2,3 just like California’s Dr. Pan did). However, none of that can happen if the majority of America does not trust the vaccines and hence sees vaccines as a corrupt assault on their health and liberty.

Note: these trends are also demonstrated by a recent large JAMA study of 443,445 Americans, which found that in April 2020, 71.5% of them trusted doctors and hospitals, while in January 2024, only 40.1% did

Vaccine Propaganda

The actual evidence against vaccines is atrocious (e.g., independent studies all show they make you 3-10x more likely to develop a variety of chronic illnesses, and there is over a century of literature showing they cause profound neurological injuries). Because of this, the only viable way to maintain the vaccine market has been to prohibit all independent research on vaccine safety (which is why RFK’s government studies are so important) and gaslight the country.

At its core, propaganda exists to sell “unsellable” ideas to the public. To accomplish this, the sale must be emotional rather than logical, as indefensible ideas quickly dissipate when exposed to debate. As such, propaganda relies upon a variety of tactics which are emotional in nature but often masquerade as being scientific.

For example, much of propaganda revolves around using words that elicit emotional responses in people and having the media collectively reinforce that emotional reaction. As such, many debates, regardless of the arguments put forward often devolve into those emotionally charged slurs (e.g., “you’re a racist,” “you are a climate change denier,” “you don’t believe in science” “you’re an anti-vaxxer” “you are a peddler of dangerous conspiracies” “you’re a quack”). Because of this:
• Non-scientific positions are often erected by having a few false slogans to defend them which are shouted until they drown out any competing arguments (rather than the arguments being seriously considered).
• A lot of work goes into sculpting the most emotionally manipulative phrase (or imagery) which can support a desired narrative, at which point it is blasted throughout the entire mass media and then adopted by everyday people who come to believe the phrases were their own ideas.

More importantly, propaganda takes advantage of the fact people are naturally hesitant to stray from the crowd, and as such, if they hear the same message everywhere (particularly if their peers also adopt it), most will quickly adopt it too. Because of this, the mass media will collectively parrot the same messages, collectively denounce those who deviate from them, have an endless stream of “experts” on to defend the status quo, and most importantly, never allow the other side to be heard.

In turn, many of the major problems with medicine in our country ultimately from from a 1997 decision by the FDA to legalize television pharmaceutical advertisements, at which point, the pharmaceutical industry became the mass media’s largest advertiser. Soon after, that financial influence was leveraged to suppress media scrutiny, gradually eliminating news reports questioning the pharmaceutical industry—especially those about vaccines—making it nearly impossible to imagine critical news programs like those that once aired existing today.
Note: news anchors who witnessed this shift, like Sharyl Attkisson have attested to it.

Because of the blank check this monopoly on truth gave them, the vaccine industry became increasingly brazen in its actions (e.g., pushing more and more injurious vaccines onto the market, enacting more and more censorship, and then implementing more and more mandates). Fortunately, like many who suddenly rise to power, they overstepped and created a significant backlash, which has arguably left the industry in its worst position ever.

This is because, in addition to the mounting injuries (as the more vaccines children get, the more injuries they will have), an even larger backlash was occurring against the mass media in general, making it much harder for them to maintain control over unpopular narratives like vaccination.

Note: in recent decades, especially the last one, the media has gotten more and more aggressive in asserting its narrative (regardless of how nonsensical it is) while suppressing all dissenting ones. Since the internet has become integrated into the fabric of society, and well produced content (e.g., those debunking mass media lies the public is against) can rapidly go viral, the existing model no longer works. If anything, the more that it is doubled down on, the more people lose trust in it.

Contorting Medical Injuries

One of my morbid hobbies has been studying how pharmaceutical drugs injure and disable people and within this spectrum, I find the ones that create psychiatric issues alongside physical ones to be particularly cruel.

For example, SSRI antidepressants have many common side effects (e.g. sexual dysfunction, bipolar disorder, emotional numbness, terrible withdrawals and at times psychotic violence), many of which cause the individual to feel as though they are “losing their mind” and desperately want to stop the drugs. However, rather than recognize the drug is injuring them, the doctor will often tell the patient those side effects are due to the patient’s own mental illness rather than being a commonly recognized side effect of the drugs.

As such, the patient will be told to continue taking their drugs. Furthermore, since “mentally ill” patients are often deemed to lack the capacity to make their own judgment, whereas psychiatrists are seen as authority figures, I have seen more cases than I can count where everyone (e.g., the patient’s family and the courts [which frequently mandate treatment]) side with the psychiatrist rather than the patient, in turn all insisting those side effects are due to the patient’s mental illness and force the patient to take even more psychiatric drugs.
Note: this gets even more challenging for the patient when they begin to lose their grip on reality from the side effects of the drug and start questioning their own judgment, or if they should give up on themselves and just blindly trust the authority figures around them.

Some of the classic ways psychiatry gaslights patients include:

• Telling them that any symptom that emerges is due to the pre-existing mental illness.

• When a patient experiences adverse effects from a drug, the dosage is increased rather than acknowledging the side effects.
Note: this is a story commonly seen immediately preceding catastrophic school shootings, but unfortunately, since there is widespread denial in the psychiatric field that SSRIs can make patients turn psychotic, it is rarely recognized (hence leading to it happening over and over again).

• When a patient experiences withdrawal reactions (which is very common and one of the most insidious issues with the SSRIs), telling the patient that those side effects prove the patient “needed” the drug (as it was treating their mental illness) rather than it being recognized as a dangerous withdrawal effect.

• When a patient develops new psychiatric symptoms (e.g., mania) patients are told the drug did not “cause” the symptoms, but rather, that the drug “unmasked” a psychiatric disorder that had always been there (even though it would have never been “unmasked” if the patient had not used the drug in the first place). For example, bipolar disorder is a debilitating condition which around 25% of longterm SSRI users develop (hence leading to an epidemic of bipolar disorder ever since we started mass medicating with SSRIs), and since it is so common, the “unmasking” story has become the party line most psychiatrists use to rationalize the harm being caused to their patients.

Sadly, gaslighting is not unique to psychiatry. For example, throughout many of the clinical trials for the more toxic drugs on the market, trial participants developed severe side effects, but to ensure the pharmaceutical’s approval, those reactions were hidden both from the trial participants and the government by the clinical trial investigators. For example, I’ve detailed the appalling degree to which this was done in:
• The SSRI clinical trials.
• The HPV vaccine trials.
• The COVID vaccine trials.
Note: many were appalled by what whistleblowers shared happened in the COVID vaccine trials (e.g., everyone telling them a clear injury they had wasn’t “real”), but as I tried to illustrate in those articles, these are actually long standing problems in clinical trials (as they cost so much money to conduct, the pharmaceutical sponsors will do everything they can to “prove” the trial showed the drug was “safe and effective”).

Since doctors are trained to believe an injury is only “real” (rather than an anecdotal coincidence or simply imagined in the patient’s mind) if the injury is proven to exist within “unbiased” clinical trials, the gaslighting you see in the clinical trials sets of a chain of gaslighting as doctors around the world will believe what the clinical trials showed is true and hence dismiss the same injuries in their own patients which were covered up the clinical trials (and hence never made it to the final clinical trial report).

Note: since many different drugs cause neurological injuries (particularly in susceptible people) that are misdiagnosed as psychiatric injuries, this creates a huge problem, particularly since those patients are often fed into the psyche funnel, at which point they get put on even more neurologically destructive medications.

Read the Whole Article

The post Ending Medical Gaslighting appeared first on LewRockwell.

It is important to debate ideas.  Debating those who disagree with you clarifies your own thoughts and shores up weaknesses in your reasoning.  Civil argument is wonderful exercise for the mind.  Healthy minds make good citizens.  Good citizens maintain strong societies.

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to conclude that one of the first signs of a crumbling society is the inability of its people to argue peacefully among themselves.

I think most people born before 1990 would agree that public debate has disintegrated over the last three decades.  We are no longer able to argue passionately — perhaps even shouting at each other — and end our disagreements by shaking hands, smiling, and moving on.  Everything today is a vicious grudge match that participants treat as existential in nature — either I win this debate or my worth as a person is zero!

Ideological zealotry has replaced thinking.  Thinking requires a person to accept the limitations of his knowledge and the possibility that he might be wrong.  Ideological zealotry short-circuits the mind’s capacity for reason and prevents those so afflicted from enjoying true creativity.

In my experience, this affliction primarily torments those who would identify as being part of the political left.  No doubt they would call me a partisan and explain all the ways my Christian beliefs trap me in a mental prison.  They would be wrong.  People who are confident in their beliefs should welcome outside challenges.

At some point as we move from adolescence to adulthood, those with enough curiosity to chase answers in this life have an epiphany: Truth abides regardless of how vigorously it is tested.  It is only when we are willing to leave the relative safety of what we already know to ask questions about what we do not that we can intellectually, morally, and spiritually prosper.  A person’s convictions are only as strong as that person’s willingness to test those convictions daily.  Faith leads us to truth, and truth leads us to faith.

In this regard, modern leftists fail.  They are currently unwilling and unable to test their beliefs.  They are not capable of admitting past mistakes or acknowledging the limits of their knowledge.  Perhaps because so many reject the existence of God, they are more inclined to see themselves as gods in this world.  To question their beliefs, in other words, is to question their theology and their religious devotion to themselves.

This was not always the case.  There was a time when leftists debated me on many subjects, and when we were done, we shook hands and continued as friends.  What has changed?  Two observations stand out — one moral or philosophical and the other institutional.

First, it was not so strange to find Christian leftists in the past.  No matter how much they might depend upon Marx as a crutch, their charitable inclinations, suspicions of free markets, or anti-war worldviews was grounded in their Christian faith.  As such, they knew that they did not have all the answers and that the surest path toward truth required an acknowledgment of one’s limitations, a willingness to seek penitence, an eagerness to heed one’s calling, and a desire to obey God’s will.

In my estimation, scientists who believe in God are much more creative intellectuals than their atheistic colleagues.  I have long suspected that this is so because the former are certain that there is much that they can never know, while the latter are certain that they will know everything.  When one believes that man is master over everything, an intellectual dullness sets in.  When one knows that God is master over everything, scientific exploration is like getting a backstage pass to see some of God’s handiwork.

The second major change over the last few decades is that the political left cemented its control over the university campus, creative arts industry, and government bureaucracy.  Although this “march through the institutions” has been a century in the making, it wasn’t so long ago when non-leftist thinkers still occupied valuable territory in the worlds of academia, publishing, and government.  If for no other reason than ensuring their own professional survival in environments where diversity of thought continued to exist, leftists once interacted with non-leftists more civilly.

Any vestige of that past is now long gone.  As leftists came to dominate the institutions, they became much more vocal in pronouncing their beliefs as undeniable and much more adamant in imposing those beliefs upon everyone else.  In fact, leftists seem to have misinterpreted their present perch atop the institutions as veritable proof that everything they believe is the absolute truth.  They have no interest in debating people with contrary worldviews because they have convinced themselves that their current cultural superiority is unimpeachable evidence that all other worldviews are wrong.  They will not defend their beliefs with logical reason because they are certain that conflicting beliefs are ipso facto unreasonable.

For decades, Americans mocked “political correctness” as something foreign to our culture.  It was common to hear leftists and non-leftists alike preface a joke by saying, “This isn’t politically correct” before laughing about politically incorrect things.  One of the unifying elements of American society was a general agreement among Americans of all political stripes that free speech is invaluable and that self-censorship is anti-American.  I had many conversations with leftists and non-leftists over the years who all expressed a similar sentiment — that American society would demonstrate that it had grown beyond petty racial, ethnic, sexual, and class divisions when everyone learned to “take a joke.”

Tragically, nobody can take a joke this century.  Words must be analyzed with intense scrutiny.  Hidden biases must be diagnosed.  Innate privileges must be identified.  Language must be policed.  People are desperate to have their feelings hurt and to express publicly how they have been offended.  Were I to tell everyone with pronouns in his bio, “Toughen up, buttercup,” I would be guilty of various -isms, supremacies, and general “hate speech.”

When hate is criminalized, the powers that be need only adjust their hate knobs accordingly to censor all dissenting speech.  “Political correctness” in America is no longer a laughing matter.  Good people have been fired, canceled, stigmatized, and even prosecuted for offending the political left.  Free speech in America remains on life support because leftists have imported foreign self-censorship.

Perhaps most bemusing is how many leftists born before 1990 now embrace this malignant oppression.  Leftists who once would have laughed at the idea that men should compete in women’s sports or that kindergarteners should be forced to attend “drag queen story hour” now speak of “transgenderism” as if it were a sacred “truth.”  Leftists who once advocated for a “colorblind” society now obsess over race.  Leftists who once argued that free speech is worth any fight now demand that governments and social media companies censor everyone with whom they disagree.

Leftists will not debate because they cannot debate.  They are ideological zealots no longer capable of independent thinking.

In this regard, writer Michael Schwarz recently brought a hilarious video from The Babylon Bee to my attention.  In this satirical gem entitled “Liberal Goes Back in Time to Kill Hitler,” a “woke” social justice warrior reluctantly realizes that she and Adolf have much in common — including their love for socialized medicine, abortion, gun control, government censorship, environmental regulation, antisemitism, and authoritarian expertise.

The whole thing is a hoot.  But beware: This video is “politically incorrect.”  You might be “canceled” for promoting it.  And leftists certainly won’t understand it.  They are simply not capable of appreciating how much they now have in common with Hitler’s Nazis.  They no longer know how to think.  They know only how to repeat slogans, impose “correct” beliefs, and punish apostates.  Besides, it’s hard to laugh when you’re busy goose-stepping.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Leftists Can’t Take a Joke appeared first on LewRockwell.