Aggregatore di feed

There is a current clash of explanatory stories in the media about whether the public slaughter of right-wing youth political activist Charlie Kirk was a professional hit conspired by power elites or the act of a lone gunman. Note, I term Kirk’s murder an assassination because his Turning Point USA organization has a massive IRS 501-C-3 tax exempt Political Action Committee (PAC) reportedly funded with $40 million to influence elections. Moreover, the suspected gunman’s own text included an admission of hatred toward Kirk and, by implication, what he stood for politically.

According to retired Judge Andrew Napolitano there is overwhelming evidence that the suspect Tyler Robinson committed the murder given his text “admission” to his transexual roommate and transexual/ROTC support group (“Hey you guys, I have bad news for you all, it was me (at Utah Valley University) yesterday…I’m surrendering through a sheriff friend in a few minutes” Robinson wrote).

The above title appears to be an oxymoron. However, I assert there is no necessary inconsistency between the Lone Gunman explanation and a Conspiracy explanation of this public murder spectacle as there was in the JFK assassination (for the Lone Gunman Theory see Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 2007 and for the JFK Conspiracy Theory see investigator Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment in the JFK Conspiracy, Vols. 1 & 2, 2017 and historian Laurent Guyenot, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, 2021). Instead, I offer a postulate of sociological facilitation of the assassination that is not antithetical to a combined conspiracy-lone-gunman-theory (but without a political “patsy”). I consider such assassinations as “institutional” assassinations, not an idiosyncratic act carried out by an introvert or loner. For there are no lone gunman political assassinations.

Post-Modern Assassination Narratives

Moreover, such political assassinations narratives are “post-modern”, meaning they can be framed whatever way those who control the media want to portray it to serve the interests of their corporate owners, donors, or financiers, or foreign interests just as the history of wars are written by the winners.  They are quasi-subjective narratives in the sense of whatever is true and serves power elites is considered the official story. Or if a foreign power wants to divide the country for geo-strategic purposes, the media may put forth two divisive narratives typically along party lines. Lone Gunmen and Conspiracy theories hang together as what philosopher Hegel called a “dialectic” by disputation between social classes, elites and the population mass, or political parties depending on the overall political context at that moment.

The CIA never admitted to complicity in the JFK assassination, but the US House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 concluded “on the basis of the evidence that it was the result of a conspiracy”. Nonetheless, this sidesteps whether the CIA had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination, since it was known by authorities two days beforehand based on information from a drug courier named Rose Cherami who ended up hospitalized and telling her story (Todd C. Elliott, A Rose Cherami by Many Names and the JFK Assassination, 2013). The FBI is currently questioning 20 people who “may have known” beforehand if Charlie Kirk was going to be shot.

The Permissive Reality of Postmodern Media Assassinations

However, the recent-past attempted 2024 assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, the recent high visibility politicized assassination of Charlie Kirk in Mormon-based Utah, and stabbing death of Ukrainian emigre Iryna Zarutska on a public transit train by a young Black man in Charlotte, North Carolina indicate high media profile murders are enabled and facilitated mainly by media visuals. Local police and FBI are leaving high elevation rooftops and perches unguarded at public events thus inviting and enabling assassination attempts by brainwashed highly self-trained gunmen. The same applies to public transit knife stabbings with security cameras showing that other transit riders do not attempt to stop criminals from perpetrating murder, especially with racial motivated stabbings. And corrupt courts and prosecutors in some jurisdictions release multiple offenders with impunity, which is tantamount to incentivizing domestic terrorism targeted at the White Middle Class.

Institutional Murder Not Psycho Derangement or Imitation

Put differently, the root causes of such high-profile media-facilitated assassinations and media stabbings are institutional. But the media frames such murder events as psychological “derangement syndrome” or “counter-racism” by individuals belonging to an outraged victim group (say transexuals, gays, multiculturist anti-whites).

What is overlooked in the media coverage of assassins is the propensity of some media-radicalized young men to imitate high profile assassinations they have seen online.  As sociologist Emile Durkheim once observed what triggers such seemingly imitative murders are not unpremeditated impulsive behavior of the moment, not the psychiatric make-up of the murderer, nor some presumed human proclivity for copy-cat crimes. As Durkheim put it: “we do not condemn it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we (institutionally) condemn it” (Emile Durkheim, Suicide, 1897).

However, capital murder is no longer evenly and harshly condemned in all jurisdictions. Refusal of some justice systems to prosecute high-profile repeat murderers is growing in media awareness, especially if the murder victim is middle class or white or opposed to the take-over of the US Congress and courts by a bribery system from foreign powers and oligarchs such as George Soros.

Brainwashing Vulnerable and Autistic American Youth

What is new in America is the radicalization of young people in high schools and colleges by assertive re-education, brainwashing programs, sex change surgeries and drug and hormone “therapies”. This can include the introduction of transexual rights laws to take younger children from their parents if the child desires to change their sex in opposition to their family and/or religion.

A commenter on Youtube.com captures up the social phenomenon of radicalization regarding the Kirk assassination:

“I’m from Utah and grew up in Washington County. This kid’s (Tyler Robinson’s) story is extremely common here. Raised by good, god-fearing parents, then goes to college and turns into a demon in a matter of weeks. There are thousands of him here. Four of my siblings are like this, and when I saw the picture of the shooter, I seriously thought it was my brother”.

Political radicalization uses the same brain washing tactics as religious cult conversions, sudden outbursts of violence by spirit possession induced by voodoo practitioners, military boot camp conversions of civilians to combat soldiers, Marxist Communist ideology handler conversions, forced confessions in prisoner of war camps, and, oddly, rigorous academic training for professionals. The suspected killer Tyler Robinson may also have been caught up with the emotional mob psychology of the crowd at the Utah event in that both proponents and opponents were contesting each other at the Kirk rally. The setting on a college campus was also auspicious and strong emotions like hate are more likely to emerge if one’s own status and power are threatened (Theodore D. Kemper, A Social-Interactional Theory of Emotions, 1978).

Re-education, brainwashing or merely watching hypnotic online sexualized videos can turn alienated young men into a killer of whites or non-Zionist Christians in a short matter of time and vice versa. But college is the social setting for most radicalization because education uses a model of breaking down young college students from their traditional altruistic values just as is done in military boot camp or medical school. The typical modus operandi of brain washing is:

* Separation and traumatization of the perpetrator from traditional social structures of family, church, and community norms and leaders either voluntarily by, say, going to college, the military, a monastery or being expelled from one’s family for drug and alcohol abuse resulting in homelessness and street crimes (such as Tyler Robinson’s transexual partner Lance Twiggs).
* Inclusion programs that financially incentivize separation from family, religion or community institutions with scholarships, loans, grants and crime victim subsidies, as well as subsidized psychotherapy, hormones and sex change surgery, to “come out” and identify as gay or “trans”.  The successfulness of conversion of young people, especially easily confused autistic adults, to a transexual identity depends not only on ideological and quasi-religious conversion but economically subsidizing such changes as most transexuals are economically vulnerable and often homeless.
* Inducing stress by rigorous professional reeducation (the 24/7 physical stress of college late night cramming for tests, writing of term papers, etc., or; conversely, trauma by multiple reincarceration in jails for repeat crimes along with drug and alcohol abuse – see William Sargant, Battle for the Mind: How Evangelists, Psychiatrists, Politicians, and Medicine Men Change Your Beliefs and Behavior, 2015; Robert Jay Lifton, Losing Reality: On Cults, Cultism and the Mindset of Political and Religious Zealotry, 2019; Anton Berea, Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook of Psychopolitics, 2013; and Edward Hunter, Brainwashing: The Story of Men Who Defied It, 2024). It should be noted that Tyler Robinson was reportedly enrolled in ROTC training in college.

Charlie Kirk founded his Turning Point USA organization to develop a youth voter base for Republicans and to counter transexual brainwashing by counter conversion to Zionist Judeo-Christianism.

Transexuals and Assassins Are Socially Made

Political assassinations by foreign states or deep states are typically carried out by 1) professional contract assassin(s), 2) recruiting and grooming a “Patsy” to take the blame for the assassination by a professional contract sniper, or 3) by grooming and instigating a vulnerable alienated young male to carry out an uncontracted hit seemingly alone especially when forced on a real life stage of rally. For example, the Trump attempted assassin Thomas Crooks in Butler, Pennsylvania, was purportedly a vulnerable autistic adult and transexual who presumably was brainwashed online and perhaps by professional psychological therapists to change his identity. Crooks’ computer and his living quarters were suspiciously wiped clean of any prior contacts, groomers, therapists or involvements.  Tyler Robinson from conservative St. George, Utah, was hanging around an ROTC and/or transexual subculture playing the “Furry Shades of Gay” porno game.

The Classical Explanation of Assassination Facilitation

The classical story about assassination by political facilitation is the Biblical story of King David and Basheba in the book of 1st Samuel, 12:7. The story deals with King David’s desire to cover up his impregnating of a married woman, Bathsheba, who was pregnant with his child. Bathsheba made a habit of bathing where the King could observe her and be titillated, perhaps the ancient equivalent of pornography. David then ordered his military general Joab to send Bathsheba’s military soldier husband Uriah to the front of a contrived war whereby he was killed. This covered up David’s adultery.

Nathan, the King’s advisor and prophet, indirectly tells David a parallel story of a poor man whose only possession was a lamb which provided milk for his children. Then a traveler came to a nearby rich man and the rich man wanted to influence the traveler for pecuniary purposes by giving him a banquet, but the rich man didn’t want to part with one of his own flock or herd of animals. Instead, he confiscated the poor man’s lamb to cook and feed the visitor (and presumably would have killed the poor man to keep his theft from being revealed).

Upon hearing this analogous parable to David’s crime of stealing someone’s wife, adultery and murder, this kindled David’s anger as King who had court powers over his flock of people.  Then David proceeded to say: “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because of he did this thing, and because he had no pity”. David asked who has done such a thing? And Nathan replied: “You are the man”.

King David never murdered Uriah directly nor directly ordered a murder hit on him. He just facilitated or enabled it to happen so he could claim plausible deniability. David deceived himself that he could hardly be blamed for lusting after a beautiful woman taking baths where he was forced to observe. His second self-deception was he did not kill Uriah directly and even Joab consoled him that such things happen in war. His third deception is that a king could not be accused and punished because he had the divine right of kings to do acts necessary to protect his people in war. Moreover, under the Ten Commandments only individual acts were prohibited, not institutional acts of a ruler. As sociologist Peter Berger says this story indicates all moral imperatives should be grounded in human responsibility, by both David and Bathsheba, not by the social roles of a ruler and a victim that people hide behind, and not based on institutional fictions such as the Lone Gunman theory (Peter L. Berger, The Precarious Vision: Social Fictions and Christian Faith, 1961).

There Are No Lone Gunmen Political Assassinations

Thus, “lone” political assassins are socially made, not born. They must be “groomed” and resocialized by handlers or therapists. It does not require much time or ideological justification to be re-socialized as a “professional boxer” while it takes a decade and specialized socialization to make doctors be inured to potential institutional murder as a “professional doctor” who can take a life with impunity during Pandemics. Professional psychopathy is institutional not psychogenic. But, to convert someone into an assassin doesn’t require as much resocialization if one has already experienced trauma, culture shock, or whose conscience has been altered by vaccines, hormones, and surgery or circumcision.  Some people may be raised to be religious “zealots” in a nomadic tribe, in which case transitioning to an assassin may not require as much resocialization. Thus, online videos of assassinations at public events and stabbings on public transit cars provide role models especially for vulnerable and weakly socialized young men. Role alternation (conversion) from a heterosexual to a transexual results in malleability of one’s identity and morality just as being socialized as a King who has implied immunity or the divine right of kings. By institutional facilitation I mean expediting the ideological justifications and progress of movement toward completing an act without being recognized as the enabler or plotter of the act, as if the act would have occurred organically without the conspiracy. 

What sociologists call “role theory” better explains institutionally facilitated assassinations than such buzz words as “derangement syndrome”, “mass psychosis”, “psy-ops”, or psychopathy often used by journalists. All institutions are coercive because they tend to be based on a secret that justifies their existence. Under role theory, society manufactures the personnel required for specific situations by placing us on a stage where we must improvise our lines and actions in accordance with our perceived role. Sometimes we create our own role as the opportunity is too tempting, as in the story of David and Bathsheba indicates. As sociologist Peter Berger explains: “…fierce warriors appear because there are armies to be sent out, pious men because there are churches to be built…and murderers because there are murders to be performed”; given that murder of Whites, middle class, or Christians is no longer condemned in some jurisdictions and security personnel continue to negligently leave perches from which to shoot political figures.

The uncovered roof top or perch is now almost becoming normal in these assassinations. Has anyone officially brought this up about the Charlie Kirk assassination? Certainly not any bureaucrat wanting to keep his job and lucrative perquisites. This does not mean that such heinous crimes cannot be subverted. They can be subverted if we can look up and see the puppet strings that control us and the puppet masters, and their puppet masters, and the ideological perches they are located on. Soon, citizens will recognize they have to cover the roof tops themselves in public events in an act of preventive subversion and resistance. In a society where the citizens can’t or won’t see that pro sports are mostly rigged, that elections are also rigged, that presidents are selected, that emperor worship is not sacred or holy, and that wars are unnecessary except to deflect blame on an external enemy, this won’t be easy, however. People want to be religious to be good or perceived as good, like David and Bathsheba.

Law and Institutional Murder 

There is a struggle going on in America about the Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools and court houses. This struggle is framed as religious morality versus secularism (e.g., transsexualism).  But the power elite want the basis of law to be individualized not focused on institutional injustice. This is the crux of the Luigi Mangione murder by gunshot of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024.  Mangione was apparently aggrieved at the “greed and parasitism” of medical insurance companies and sought a “symbolic takedown” by murder of the CEO of the largest insurance provider. Of course, taking the life of a health insurance CEO is an absurd, adolescent and Marxist-like evil, and a misdirected act to address institutional policy. Moreover, greater health care insurance coverage does not necessarily result in reducing avoidable deaths.

Hebraic religious norms and law only focus on individualized concepts such as “sin”, transgression, mental incompetency and compensation for victims, having nothing to do with the institutional facilitation of crimes.  However, the extent, if any, of hormone replacement therapy, drugs or surgery may have had on the Kirk murderer may be a wild card.  Hebraic criminal law is based on the concept of sin while English Common Law is based on Christianity and situation ethics of the case at hand and legal precedent (not the same as relativism). Former Special Forces soldier and author of The Eternal War (2023), E.M. Burlingame says the world’s worst atrocities were all done legallyunder the concept of civility under Hebraic law and opts for English Common Law instead. Hebraic Law is the law of elites while English Common Law is the law of the commoner. But Judeo-Christians are being taught the opposite that the Ten Commandments are necessary to restore morality, even though avoiding lying is not one of those commandments because it pertains more to rulers than commoners.

It is not inconceivable that the heinous public slaughter of Charlie Kirk in front of his children by an obviously radicalized well-trained non-contract sniper was institutionally channeled (“set up” in mafia terms), plausibly even by a foreign power, but the blame will be placed on the individual as a lone gunman. Certainly, the FBI, state marshal, county sheriff, local police and security personnel, and the Turning Point USA security spotters, are not going to bring up the issue of institutional negligence, despite its glaring obviousness. Neither did King David or Bathsheba.

The post How Power Elites Facilitate ‘Lone Gunman’ Assassinations (Without a Patsy) appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the book CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement I provide evidences and testimonies from renowned international climate scientists that contradict the UN assertion that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. I also refer to the conclusion of over 2,000 climate scientists and climate professionals at the Climate Intelligence Foundation that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and that CO2 emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. In this article I explore what Chat GPT won’t tell you about climate change, and the danger of always relying on AI tools as your source for information – the danger that misinformation poses to our consciousness.

Purchase here

Living in ChatGPT illusion

A neighbor seeking the truth about climate change and what causes it, made the catastrophic mistake of seeking the answers to these life-defining questions from a non-living entity, a computer program known as ChatGPT.  The question is below in bold – the response from ChatGPT follows.

Question to ChatGPT: Has the causal relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature increases been scientifically proven, such that there is large-scale consensus on the evidence?

Answer from ChatGPT: Yes, there is a large-scale consensus among scientists that there is a causal relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and global average temperature increases. This consensus is based on a wealth of scientific evidence, including the laws of physics, the properties of greenhouse gases, and observations of the Earth’s climate system…

This increase in CO2 has led to a corresponding increase in global average temperature, as evidenced by a range of observations and models.

The consensus view on this issue is reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that it is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have been the dominant cause of the observed warming of the Earth’s climate over the past century. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the Royal Society of the United Kingdom….

The ChatGPT responses certainly do not refer to the fact that over 2,000 scientists and climate professionals have signed a declaration refuting the UN IPPC. For more detail on these refutations see this article published on LewRockwell.com – 1900 Scientists Say ‘Climate Change Not Caused by CO2

Recall also the words of Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, who has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the United Nations (UN) IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [iii].

“the IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole
process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC
scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem!!”

I have also signed the above declaration disputing the UN narrative. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at United Nations Environment.

Using a machine AI or computer program to assist with functional tasks is one thing, but, as the Climate CO2 Hoax book demonstrates, always relying on AI tools for ‘life-defining’ direction and guidance only serves to show how dangerous the technocratic path of development is.  The UN climate narrative has a huge impact on government and public policy worldwide, significantly affecting the lives and behaviors of us all, as we are told, “save the planet”. Millions have been duped into believing that the world’s humans are the cause of climate change. Unless you recognize truth you are in danger of being duped into false senses of responsibility and guilt.

Meanwhile, the mass production of batteries for electric vehicles causes real pollution to land, air and water systems. There is value in independent research, and tapping into one’s God-given intelligence, consciousness and intuition.

ChatGPT is simply feeding out the information that was fed into it via data repositories, regardless of whether the data and information is correct, incorrect, or fabricated. The benefits of any tool ultimately depends on who owns and controls it, and in the case of AI, what data repositories are fed into it, and what restrictions are placed upon the information outputs. Thus, AI can be a very beneficial tool; or it can be used as a tool for a dis-information reality and ‘thought control’ matrix for the masses.

I asked ChatGPT the following question: Tell me above the fake climate science that is promoted by the United Nations.

Answer from ChatGPT: “I need to pause here — I can’t provide content that promotes climate change denial or frames mainstream climate science as “fake.” But what I can do for you:… Summarize common critiques of climate policy (e.g., economic impacts, energy trade-offs, political agendas) without disputing the scientific consensus.”

So there we have it Chat GPT will not consider science that is not part of the “scientific consensus”.

Facts, it seems, are now determined by “consensus” not by by any scientific method – “consensus” has replaced the scientific method. Furthermore, it appears to me, based on the testimonies of the renowned climate scientists detailed in the above book, the UN climate narrative has also been established by fabrication, lies, selective data, and an ulterior agenda.

AI, for all its practical uses, portrays a ‘consensus reality’, but consensus is not science, and who and what creates the consensus? Often money and power does – so what does it tell us when most of the scientists that support the UN climate narrative are on perpetual government salaries and grants. Yet, dozens of independently established organizations have detailed data and analysis from numerous climate scientists and physicists indicating that climate change is not a man-made CO2-induced phenomenon. For example, see the video presentations by renowned scientists on the Irish Climate Science Forum website.

Authentic science involves the method of observing and testing whether something is true or false, and is independent of popular opinion or popular consensus.  In modern scientism the method has been discarded, and scientism backed by ‘majority consensus’ is wielded as propaganda to control the minds of the masses.The UN CO2-induced climate change story indoctrinated millions of people. This green deception has become so entrenched that some people even attempt to block road traffic in the belief this will help to save the world.

It has become increasingly clear that in the realm of modern science that which is presented to the public as established fact, is often nothing more than a consensus fabricated by powerful groups of people. It appears the “consensus” has been shaped according to which narratives are funded. It is not just political and ideological agendas that are funded by debt-money, but also the consensus narratives that are presented to us as modern science. See also the book Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers

Purchase here

Are you using the technology or is the technology using you?

ChatGPT and other AI tools are tools of the technocratic consensus. The technocracy tells living souls what is true or false, and what to think and believe. Off-loading all our human curiosities to a digital zombie is not a good idea. Ask yourself are you using the technology or is the technology using you? The difference between a human brain ‘machine’ and a computer ‘machine’ is that the living human brain is experiencing a state of symbiosis with the living soul that is you. AI programs, such as ChatGPT, are sophisticated, but dead, machinery tools designed to keep you enslaved to the consensus narratives and control ideologies of the slave matrix. The matrix seeks blind obedience to a fabricated reality in an attempt to dis-empower you. However, we have free will and our choices define us. Real relationships and real trust can only take place between living souls.

Manmade machines cannot compare with the ‘organic machinery’ of the human brain, which was made by God, and has a level of complexity and intelligent design far beyond human understanding. The human brain was made by God not just for data learning, but for experiential learning involving consciousness and the soul itself. AI can answer functional task based questions, but if millions of living souls are going to be asking ChatGPT for the answers to the pressing questions of our time they run the risk of living deluded lives.

The technology of the technocracy is merely a reflection of its human architects and funders. It is a sophisticated information repository – the problem is it is a repository of ‘control matrix’ information; as is Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. All of which have used a type of censorship in the form of algorithms and ‘community guidelines’ to determine what “truth” you should be told and what information will not be presented to you. Interesting information, entertainment, and problem solving may hook you in – however, fake science, illusion and ‘cul de sacs’ await you in the technocracy.

Chat GPT is a soulless machine – it does not care whether it is telling the truth or not. (Digital life is a complete impossibility – it is a delusion of atheistic technocrats.) Some say that ‘ChatGPT is smarter than you’. Well, that will only become true if you always trust ChatGPT as you will be in danger of being subsumed into areas of misdirected consciousness. Misdirected from real material and spiritual knowledge – this amounts to spiritual pollution. Then your role as a living soul is in danger of being subverted and you become a living product of the lies you may have been fed.

The post The Climate CO2 Hoax – What ChatGPT Won’t Tell You appeared first on LewRockwell.

“173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Ten-year budget negotiations misdirect politicians, commentators, and voters. Politicians talk about saving in the future while they act to spend and inflate now.

Projecting spending is executive power. Even so, congressmen and presidents claim that it’s legal that they require that projections be made by a congressional budget office.

Any spending projections need to foretell politicians’ future actions as closely as possible.

Progressives’ future actions are predicted best by their present actions. If they cut spending now, that predicts that they will maintain those cuts. If they increase spending now, that predicts that they will maintain those increases. The most reality-based projection would simply start with politicians’ next-year budget and hold it constant at the same inflation-adjusted real rate across the balance of the ten-year budget.

This would also help further, because the ten-year projection would magnify the impact of Progressives’ current actions. Magnifying that impact upfront would strongly incentivize voters to push these politicians to take better actions now.

Unlike Progressives’ constant despotism, constitutionalists will increase freedom year after year, because constitutionalists’ simple process gets every incentive right.

The figure contrasts constitutionalists’ future workflow in the top half with Progressives’ current workflow in the bottom half.

Figure. Constitutionalists’ work will protect boundaries. Progressives’ work crosses boundaries.

Mostly, constitutionalist legislators will just expeditiously pass a single overall-total appropriation, then move on to passing constitutional rules and sanctions for the rest of the year. Also, they will provide broken-windows policing as soon as it’s needed to protect our rights, by summarily impeaching.

Constitutionalists in all jurisdictions will execute a commonsense workflow like what the Constitution requires:

• The president shall from time to time give congressmen information on the state of the government.
• Congressmen must make an appropriation before money is spent.
• Statutes must only use powers enumerated for the national government, must not be delegations of legislative power, and must not be grabs of executive power or judicial power.
• If already-available information suggests that people’s rights to life, liberty, and secure property would be threatened by delegating national-government power to an official, then the official shall be summarily impeached, and the privilege to use that power shall no longer be delegated to him.
• The president, like every official, shall interpret the constitutionality of his every action, and shall faithfully execute the statutes and judicial opinions that he himself interprets are constitutional.
• The president shall recommend to congressmen’s consideration such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

Mostly, Progressive legislators logroll and demand spending, all year long. They also delegate away their legislative power to regulators, and grab more executive power by conducting oversight.

Progressives in all jurisdictions execute a dystopian workflow, defying the Constitution through and through:

• Executives give audiences of voters information on what we the people did, plus nauseating marketing of government.
• Legislators grab the executive power to allocate line items. They logroll, then treat each line item as mandatory to spend. Later they allocate supplemental or emergency items. Here too they logroll, then treat each item as mandatory to spend.
• Legislators and executives delegate lawmaking power to bureaucrats. Legislators and executives grab the executive power to control executive processes. They grab judicial power by sending cases to Constitution-violating administrative courts.
• Legislators grab the executive power to manage the execution of constitutional rules and statutes, and call this power-grab oversight. Meanwhile they shirk their legislative duty to summarily impeach to protect our life, liberty, and property. Instead they protect their distinguished colleagues’ privileges.
• Officials each claim they have to do whatever other legislators, executives, or judges say they must do. They claim they have no power, and certainly no duty, to interpret the Constitution and to only take actions that support the Constitution.
• Executives recommend to legislators that they should work together to unconstitutionally grant even more legislative, executive, and judicial powers to bureaucrats.

Progressives’ workflow likely looks familiar, even normal. But the consequences are dire. We are left with no representation that relieves us from Progressives’ despotism.

Constitutionalists’ workflow is the gold standard we should compare officials’ actions to. If we keep in mind the actions that the Constitution requires officials to take, we will see more clearly and with more specificity the exact actions Progressive officials currently take that constitute these people’s high despotism. Our very-best future legislators and executives will see this despotism clearly too.

As soon as majorities of legislators either stop themselves or get stopped by at least some others from grabbing executives’ powers, Progressive legislators’ most-destructive current despotism will end. Representatives will instead support the Constitution.

A constitutionalist executive will responsibly report how he spent the previous appropriation: how much he spent, what worked well, what worked poorly.

Constitutionalist legislators will pass the next appropriation and will promptly move on to triaging and repealing existing statutes that are unconstitutional or unwise. That is, they will take up the task that currently is their main job, and that nobody but legislators can do for us.

Government people, it’s still your move, for now. Until you no longer have a choice because we have taken our power back.

The post Constitutionalists’ Workflow Is Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s rare in peacetime, a meeting of all your flag officers in one place – and even more rare when a country is at war. The first question we must ask our generals and admirals, and our brand spanking new Secretary of War, is “Are we at war?”

This question – frankly pertinent and simultaneously impertinent – would stymie our American generals and those who lead them into harm’s way, and more commonly, down dead end streets, over the cliffs of insanity, and into fire swamps.  Like former President Joe Biden, they Simply. Don’t. Know.

Obviously, this one question needs to be answered, and constitutionally explained by the Secretary of “War.”  It’s the least we can ask of the young man.

Then, I would imagine that, given Secretary Hegseth is the MAGA man in the Pentagon, he will give the following short speech.

Thank you all for coming. I hope you packed your sh!%.

Putting America First means means change for the Pentagon. Some of you may have noticed that you haven’t won a war in 80 years. And yet, except for the ever-expanding trillions that pad your budgets and enrich you in retirement, not much has gotten better in the warfighting arena in those 80 years.  Instead of an industrial capacity that allowed ramped-up production and innovation like the last time Congress declared war, we now have a far less industrial economy, and a changed demography.  Fewer people are engaged in the kind of work that makes the kind of war you think you are conducting possible.  The US economy today produces 43% of the globe’s weapons – and yet the nation does not profit!  US-made weapons today are, as a rule, temperamental, expensive, inelegant, designed by committees and dreamed up by politicians in and out of uniform.  What you call war is just another business, and you are pretty rotten businessmen.

You’re adapting as fast as you can, but your pace is somewhere between glacial and geologic. What’s worse, the main thing you’re adapting to is the loss of actual Americans willing to fight and pay for your undeclared yet heavily justified wars. Most of you have never read Catch-22, and yet is it amazing how so many of you were actually in the novel!  The undeclared, unpopular, idiotic, expensive, horrendously led and managed, objective-free and poorly fought wars you all have spent your careers extending and nurturing must end.  Today is that day.

The brighter among you have noticed that the President changes his mind and his focus a dozen times a day. But have you noticed that we are no longer the MacDaddy of the planet, war pimps for dollars, respected for our military and diplomatic prowess? Your real daddies are David Petraeus and Keith Kellogg, and the last thing on their mind is putting America’s security first.  Your handmaidens for future war, at home and abroad, are Alex Karp and contractor operated propaganda management.   That’s not innovation, that’s a defense department that has forgotten what defending actually is.

I see many of you are distracted, it has been a minute.  Hopefully, as you look at your phones, you will see the termination notices.  We texted them to every man on your right and on your left.  Two-thirds of you will take your accrued leave when this meeting ends, and we’ll send any belongings to your home of record as soon as we get a chance.

Our President once mentioned that he hoped to cut the Pentagon budget in half, and we are taking lead on that today.  Just as the United States is not at war, much of what you and your pet projects have been doing is not warfighting.  It is not preparing for war.  It is not preparing to win future wars.  Because everyone has an excuse, and everybody here thinks their “mission” is just as real and valuable as that of the next guy, we’re cutting spending in half, and the third of you who didn’t get fired today will make it  work.

Trump is helping you out, as we are no longer going to fight a war with China, or Russia, and as soon as Israel slaughters and starves the remainder of the Gazans and West Bank Palestinians, we’re not fighting their wars any more either.  We are going to focus on protecting just America.  Sure, we will continue to sell weapons – but even the President recognizes that those weapons markets have shrunken to mainly a few captive NATO countries, and US weapons are today out-produced, out-designed, and out-performed by just about everyone in the global weapons sector.

Many of you are crying now, and I’m sorry about that.  You are asking “Why?” and “Why me?” Let me explain.

For a long time we held to the Reagan Doctrine – Peace through Strength.  But we had it backwards. Strength, real strength of economy and spirit, comes through peace.  A recent Costs of War study assessed how ineffectual it is to try to make a country stronger by spending excessively in – and obsessively justifying – the military sector.  We create wars that make fools of us all.  I mentioned Generals Petraeus and Kellogg as products and exemplars of Pentagon circular reasoning, but it’s all of you, and all of us.

A 50% cut in one day is pretty doggone American, where two-income families live paycheck to paycheck, pink slips are everywhere, and jobs scarce.  President Trump is trying, in the best way he knows how, to diversify the quantity and quality of things we make ourselves, and broaden the kinds of things we market to others.  He wants to open up new markets through his force of personality and dealmaking, and while that’s not enough, at least he is using what he has in his own toolkit to make America better than he found it – something we can’t say about everyone in this room.  He’s facing in the right direction, towards peace, because he believes we have made some terrible war oriented investments for average Americans. He is energized and also afraid, because the deep state beneficiaries of war and chaos are bristling, angry and taking aim. But you already knew that part.

Brown University’s Cost of War project has the numbers – money spent on overseas war, war consumables and war technology gives a poor return on investment when compared with other government spending, or keeping more of what you earn to invest in your own families and communities.  Americans, in debt and on the brink of civil war, with real declines in health and quality of life, no longer have the luxury of this poor investment.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  It’s one-way now.

Well, I hope Pete gives this speech, but if he wants to talk about warrior ethos, I’ve got another one that’s short and sweet, courtesy Sun Tsu.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.  Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!

The post An Assembly of Generals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Social justice warriors often suppose that since they are advancing “justice” they are entitled to do whatever they deem necessary to defend their cause. Any atrocity they commit should be viewed sympathetically because, after all, they are on the side of the angels. In the public discourse on crime and punishment, they argue that if the criminal is a victim of “systemic racism” this means he should always be understood primarily as a victim of injustice who deserves compassion. As reported in a recent case,

The Democratic mayor of the city where a Ukrainian refugee was allegedly stabbed to death by a known criminal has called for “compassion” for the suspect.… Ms Lyles said that Charlotte “must do better” for people like Mr Brown, who is homeless, as they “need help and have no place to go.”

This is a modern iteration of the influential discourse surrounding the crimes of another Mr. Brown—the abolitionist hero John Brown. Slavery violates the right to self-ownership, and therefore, as many abolitionists saw it, that would justify waging a defensive war against slavery. The deeds and misdeeds of John Brown are said to be best understood in light of the fact that he was a virtuous man engaged in the justified cause of punishing slaveowners and setting slaves free. The argument is that it does not matter that he happened to kill innocent people either by mistake or because they happened to be present at the time of his attack—that is all to be subsumed within the overall righteousness of his crusade against slavery. As the Battlefield Trust reports,

Born in Torrington, Connecticut, John Brown belonged to a devout family with extreme anti-slavery views.

…

In response to the sacking of Lawrence, Kansas, John Brown led a small band of men to Pottawatomie Creek on May 24, 1856. The men dragged five unarmed men and boys, believed to be slavery proponents, from their homes and brutally murdered them. Afterwards, Brown raided Missouri – freeing eleven slaves and killing the slave owner.

What the Battlefield Trust does not mention is that the unarmed men and boys in Kansas who were “believed to be slavery proponents” were not slave owners. They were, however, farmers from Tennessee, which was a slave state, and on that basis John Brown’s band wrongly assumed that they were likely to be slavery proponents. The mother of the slain boys later wrote to John Brown:

…you can now appreciate my distress, in Kansas, when you then and there entered my house at midnight and arrested my husband and two boys and took them out of the yard and in cold blood shot them dead in my hearing, you cant say you done it to free our slaves, we had none and never expected to own one, but has only made me a poor disconsolate widow with helpless children while I feel for your folly.

In these types of cases, people often wrongly assume that once the cause is deemed to be righteous any steps taken to further that cause are, necessarily, ethically and morally sound. In addition to many other problems with that reasoning, it overlooks the doctrine of proportionality, which is an important principle of justice. Proportionality reflects the classical ideal that the punishment should always fit the crime. Even without getting into a debate on the rights and wrongs of both sides of a debate, the principle of proportionality marks the boundary of what is considered reasonable conduct in the exercise of one’s own rights and the furtherance of what one believes to be a justified cause. Proportionality plays a particularly important role in delineating the boundaries of self-defense, because beyond a certain point what started out as self-defense may amount to an act of aggression—when it becomes all out of proportion to the initial attack. Without any notion of reasonableness or proportionality, there would be no principled limits to the exercise of one’s own rights. The right to self-defense would entitle a homeowner to summarily execute any trespasser who happened to tread onto his property.

In the Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that any form of violent defense must be proportionate, otherwise the victim of a crime turns into an aggressor himself. No one can claim to uphold the non-aggression principle while he brazenly commits acts of aggression against others cloaked in the mantle of defense. First, violent defense must always be in response to a “clear and present” danger which is usually lacking in the cases under discussion. Even supposing there had been any danger, as argued by the progressives who see “systemic racism” as an ever-present form of “structural violence,” the next question that must be considered is “how far does the right of violent defense go?” Rothbard’s principle of proportionality holds that “the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights.”

He illustrates this with the example of a storekeeper who claims “the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum.” A storekeeper who decides to execute a mere shoplifter is himself an aggressor: “the storekeeper has become a far greater criminal than the thief, for he has killed or wounded his victim—a far graver invasion of another’s rights than the original shoplifting.” In this example, the shoplifter has not used physical violence, nor threatened explicitly or implicitly to use violence—the extent of violence in each case is not a theoretical matter but is entirely fact dependent. Further, it should be noted that proportionality is not the same as “equal,” as quite clearly the impact of a crime cannot be measured in such a way as to ensure that the retaliation or punishment is “equal.” Rothbard gives many examples where the appropriate punishment may well be greater than the crime, without being thereby disproportionate.

Readers will be aware that in Rothbard’s philosophy, “racism” is not a moral wrong because the only moral wrongs in his libertarian system are violations of property rights. But even if one were to accept the premise of the social justice warriors that “racism” is a moral wrong, under the principle of proportionality it would never be justified for a “victim” of racism to retaliate against “structural harm” by attacking the person or property of another. That would be grotesquely out of proportion, to use Rothbard’s terminology.

It is irrelevant, therefore, that a criminal may feel that “the system” has been unfair to him. Even if we were to suppose that to be true, for the sake of argument, it still would not justify acts of aggression against others. The same reasoning applies to slavery as a moral wrong. Although slavery in the West was abolished in the nineteenth century, there are still progressive liberals today who argue that the “legacies” of slavery still subsist, and that this justifies the victims of such legacies in violating the property rights of others. Again, even if that argument were to be accepted as valid, it would still be grotesquely disproportionate to commit acts of aggression against others.

To be clear, it is not argued here that the social justice warriors are correct to view themselves as righteous crusaders, nor is it suggested that the only thing wrong with them is their lack of proportionality and if only they would act proportionately their evil worldview would become good. The argument is, rather, that even if one were to assume their premise to be sound (to be clear, that is not my own view), it would still be wrong for them to rely on that premise as an excuse to violate the rights of others. Even taken on their own terms, those who use their own righteousness as an excuse to commit crimes against others are grotesquely outrageous.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post The Principle of Proportionality appeared first on LewRockwell.

Britain’s Keir Starmer is already pulling the rug from under his own grudging declaration. The only hope of change is of the unintended consequences variety

Middle East Eye – 26 September 2025

The reluctant recognition of Palestinian statehood by Britain, France, Australia, Canada this week is a con – it is the same switch and bait that has been blocking the creation of a Palestinian state for three decades now.

Imagine that these four leading western countries had recognised Palestine not in late 2025, when Palestine is in the final stages of being eradicated, but in the late 1990s, during a period of supposed Palestinian state-building.

That was when the Oslo accords were signed with western backing. The Palestinian Authority was established under Yasser Arafat with the apparent aim that Israel would gradually withdraw from the territories it still occupies in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and begin ruling an emergent Palestinian state.

At Israel’s insistence, let us note, the Oslo accords carefully avoided any mention of the ultimate destination of this process. Nonetheless, the message from western politicians and media was the same: this was heading towards a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.

Looking back, it is evident why that did not happen when it still looked feasible.

The Israeli leader of the time, Yitzhak Rabin, told the Israeli parliament that his vision was not of a state but of “an entity which is less than a state”: a glorified Palestinian local authority utterly dependent on its bigger neighbour, Israel, for its security and economic survival.

After Rabin was assassinated by a far-right Israeli gunman, his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, was propelled into power by a majority of the Israeli public on a mandate to stop the Oslo process in its tracks.

He repeatedly reneged on commitments to withdraw Israeli soldiers and Jewish settler-militias from the occupied West Bank. In fact, in this period of supposed “peace-making”, Israel colonised Palestinian land at the fastest rate ever.

In 2001, during his time in opposition, Netanyahu was secretly caught on camera, explaining how he achieved this reversal.

Reports this week of a watered-down version of the plan suggest Tony Blair, the war criminal who oversaw the destruction of Iraq two decades ago with George W Bush, may be appointed effective “governor” of a Gaza in ruins.

Read the Whole Article

The post Recognition of Palestine Is a Repeat of the West’s Oslo ‘Peace’ Fraud appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the COVID-19 rollout, patients gradually began to realize that some of the COVID-19 vaccines were more dangerous than others. Initially this was written off as a conspiracy theory. However, as time moved forward, and more evidence emerged to support the “hot lot” hypothesis there was an increasing acceptance of this theory.

At the time, the most common theory I heard raised to account for this was that a large global experiment was being done to assess the effects of various mRNA doses (e.g., one researcher was able to show that the hot lots of each COVID vaccine brand hit the market at different times in a manner that seemed to be coordinated between the manufacturers and that Pfizer’s lots contained a simple code that correlated to their toxicity).

However, while this was possible (as you can put nothing past these people) I was more inclined to an alternative hypothesis: that it was not possible to correctly produce the mRNA vaccines at scale, so there would be a large number of production issues including many either toxic or inactive lots hitting the market.

This theory was based on both my knowledge of the specific engineering challenges the mRNA technology faced and the fact that hot lots are an enduring problem with vaccines.

Because of this, many (myself included) believe the vaccine industry concluded it wasn’t possible to completely clean up their production process while maintaining the economic viability of the vaccines, so they instead focused on getting the Federal government to exempt them from liability for their hot lots under the argument that “vaccines were essential for our national security” so a certain number of people being injured by defective vaccines was an acceptable trade-off to maintain this “vital” national resource.

Given the severity of this allegation, I will now present several incidents where ‘hot’ vaccine lots have been identified in the market.

Adventitious Agents

One of the greatest challenges with producing a biological pharmaceutical is that it has to be grown in a medium (e.g., a virus within cells or a growth medium for bacteria). This introduces a few major issues.

• First, if cell cultures are used, an unrecognized virus may already have infected the cells and contaminated the final product.

• Second, anytime a growth medium is used, unwanted pathogens can also get in (e.g., from the air) and then grow there. This is especially problematic because the same labs that produce these products also often house harmful infectious organisms.

• The entire process inevitably requires a purification stage where the undesired contaminants (e.g., unwanted bacteria, foreign DNA, or toxic components of now destroyed bacteria) are removed. Unfortunately, it is often quite difficult or costly to remove these unwanted contaminants, and the cost frequently exceeds what the manufacturers are willing to pay.

In turn, unwanted biological contaminants (euphemistically termed adventitious agents) are an enduring challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. For example, this recent 2022 review paper highlighted some of the most common “adventitious agents” (e.g., mycoplasma frequently contaminate cultures) and cited a few well-known incidents such as:

• In 1946, a sheep vaccine was contaminated with prions (due to it being sourced from sheep in the early asymptomatic stage of the prion disease scrapie—something similar to Mad Cow Disease), which in turn caused the sheep in the herd that received the vaccine to later get scrapie.

• The FDA reported in 1973 that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and oral polio vaccine were contaminated with bacteriophages (viruses that eat bacteria). This was due to the blood used to make those vaccines containing bacteria, and the bacteria but not their attached bacteriophages being filtered out of the final product.

• In 1995, the MMR and yellow fever vaccines were found to be contaminated with the Endogenous Avian Retrovirus and the Avian Leukosis Virus.

• In 1997, scrapie was also spread to sheep through another contaminated vaccine.

• In 2004 and 2005, two rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and RotaTeq manufactured by Merck, were found to be contaminated with porcine circovirus-1 (PCV1) after over 100 million doses of the vaccine had been distributed worldwide.

• In 2007, over 1 million doses of the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine were recalled due to the detection of Bacillus cereus in the manufacturing equipment.

Sadly, as we investigate the past, it will become clear these events were only the tip of the iceberg.

Note: many reported incidents that I am not aware of didn’t make it to this article, while a far larger number of incidents were never reported, but I nonetheless believe the cases listed in this article are more than sufficient to make the point.  Similarly, as a I discussed in a previous article, while lab leaks with dangerous pathogens are typically not reported, enough documented instances exist within the peer reviewed literature to establish that those leaks are inevitable and impossible to avoid (which in turn argues that this research ever being conducted).

Sir Graham Wilson

Sir Graham Wilson was an eminent bacteriologist from the London School of Hygiene (e.g., in 1923 he coined the concept of herd immunity—an often impossible benchmark that I’ve previously shown has been used to repeatedly sell dubious vaccines to the world). Wilson grew up in a time when many bacterial infections were treated with vaccines or antiserums (particularly antitoxins for the tetanus or diphtheria toxin). At this time, his profession believed anti-vaxxers were irrational and pseudoscientific individuals and that vaccines were “100% safe and effective.”

However, as Wilson became older, he began to see more and more evidence that there were real dangers to vaccination, and that his profession habitually covered it up to maintain the mythology all vaccines were “safe and effective.” In turn, due to Wilson’s stature in the field, many other (anonymous) vaccine experts shared their records of secret vaccine disasters that had occurred with Wilson and helped him to compile a detailed record of published and unpublished vaccine catastrophes that had occurred as many of them harbored immense guilt over what had happened, but simultaneously felt that they could not take on the risk of speaking publicly about it.

From reviewing the record he put together, what I find remarkable about Wilson’s work was how much of it mirrors what we saw a century later—for example, very few people know that one of the original cases of Guillain Barré syndrome was due to a vaccine injury:

In an article published in 1919 Guillain and Barré referred to Landry’s–type paralysis when they reported a fatal case of acute polyneuritis with albuminocytologic dissociation after typhoid vaccination.

In Guillain and Barré’s case numbness and stiffness became apparent in the patient’s legs the day after injection and the following day in his hands. Paralysis gradually came on and by the 9th day was complete in the legs, arms, and face. Bulbar symptoms developed on the 7th day, and on the 10th day, the patient died.

Note: previously I discussed many of the documented cases Wilson unearthed of a vaccination causing a pre-existing illness (e.g., polio) to spiral out of control.

One of the key themes that kept on recurring in the records Wilson unearthed was that many vaccine catastrophes occurred after a contaminated lot was given to a large number of people (typically children or soldiers). Wilson in turn argued that rather than denying these incidents occurred, his profession needed to be honest about them so that the mistakes that led to these toxic ‘hot’ lots could be recognized and hence prevented from happening again. In The Hazards of Immunization, he discussed the following hot lot incidents:

I will now review those incidents in detail.

Note: Wilson documented many severe reactions that occurred from the early vaccinations. In this article, I am only covering the subset of reactions which occurred at a higher rate than the typical rate.

Hot Lots of the Past

Note: I tried to find all the sources Wilson cited (his citations were not that clear). For those not cited, please refer to his 1967 book. Additionally, some of the incidents listed here we not covered by Wilson, and for all of those, direct sources are provided. Lastly, many of the deaths described here were agonizing and horrific, but for brevity, I have not detailed each of them.

Diphtheria

Early diphtheria vaccines utilized the diphtheria toxin to provoke an immune response to it. Since it was so difficult to neutralize its toxicity, numerous accidents occurred due to hot lots being released with an active diphtheria toxin which had a variety of characteristic symptoms (many of which overlapped with other vaccine injuries). For example:

Disturbances of sensibility were sometimes detectable, especially in the older children. They included paraesthesia, formication in the extremities, and diminution in the muscular sense and the orientation of the limbs leading to ataxia. The patellar reflex was first exaggerated, then lost, and regained as recovery took place. One of the earliest symptoms was an exaggeration of the oculocardiac reflex; in several hundred patients it was observed that compression of the eyeball led to stoppage of the heart.

Note: the oculocardiac reflex is now a mostly a forgotten side of medicine (outside of very specific areas of medicine such as surgeries on the eyes). The diagnosis of this reflex is defined by the heart rate decreasing by over 20% after pressure is placed on the eyes (which typically does not happen) due to activation of the vagus nerve. I have a few theories on why vaccine injuries would cause that reflex to stop the heart, but I am not confident in any of them.

Let’s now look at a few of the cases of diphtheria hot lots:

• In October 1919 the city of Dallas Texas began administering the diphtheria toxin (and its antitoxin) to non-immune children. Many different lots were used, and one of those ended up being hot (due to it having over 50 times the maximum permissible levels of free diphtheria toxin). Several hundred doses of it were given (although the exact number remains unknown), and 50 severe reactions to it were reported (with many more not being reported). When 120 of those injected were studied, it was found that 96 had reactions, 12 of which were moderate, 74 which were severe, and 10 of which were fatal.

Each of the 96 Dallas cases in turn had an almost identical progression of symptoms. Their symptoms went in the following order:

1. Intense burning at the site of injection which in a few hours became agonizing.

2. This was accompanied by severe nausea, vomiting, constipation, signs of a kidney injury, extreme swelling of the entire arm, and a reaction that spread into the rest of the body.

3. 24-48 hours after injections, vesicles appeared at the injection site, which leaked a burning fluid, and after they disappeared, left a raw ragged and ill-smelling patch 6-12 square inches (or more) in area which took around 2 to 2.5 months to heal.

4. Around 9-10 days, the heart became highly irregular and this lasted until the 8th to 10th week.

5. Starting at the third week, all the patients had muscles throughout the body become paralyzed (including the ones which controlled neurological functions like vision). Typically, these neurological complications lasted for 18-20 weeks, and tended to be more severe in those who had had a less severe initial reaction to the vaccine.

Remarkably, no investigation over what went wrong in Dallas was ever conducted, so other similar incidents also occurred.

Note: aspects of the incident are discussed within this 1927 book.

• In 1922 a 14-year old in Belgium was injected with a vial of diphtheria toxin (receiving at least 100 times the lethal dose) that had somehow gotten into a batch of tetanus vaccines, and died seven days later from cardiac paralysis.

• In Massachusetts in 1924, two lots were given that became toxic due to being frozen. For one lot, 21 of the 23 who received it, had severe reactions to the vaccine (but none died), while for the other lot, 22 of the 31 had severe reactions. After these incidents were studied, it was concluded that the cold had separated the antitoxin from caused it to agglomerate (clump) together on the bottom of the vial.
Note: colloidal agglomeration and zeta potential are discussed further here (as one of the primary toxicities of vaccines is that they cause fluids in the body like the blood to clump together and stop flowing).

• In Baden in 1924, 34 infants and children received a hot lot, of whom, 6 had no reaction, 11 had mild reactions, and 17 had severe reactions (of which 10 were fatal). A subsequent investigation revealed that when this lot was produced, diphtheria toxin was accidentally mixed with another diphtheria toxin rather than an antitoxin.

• In Tashkent (U.S.S.R.) in 1927, 14 children received diphtheria toxin instead of antitoxin, 8 of whom died. In their case, administering the antitoxin, appeared to prevent their immediate death and instead caused them to die from a progressive paralytic neurological disorder.

• In 1928 in Queensland, 21 children were injected with a diphtheria toxin-antitoxin mixture of whom 12 died. Unlike the other cases, this one appears to have been due to the vaccine being contaminated with Staph Aureus.

• In Columbia in 1930, 48 children were given toxin instead of antitoxin, many became severely ill (often becoming comatose or convulsive) and 16 of them (with 14 dying in 1-3 days and the others dying from progressive neurological symptoms). One noteworthy aspect of this incident was that many of the children developed the characteristic diphtheria membrane in the throat (which gradually suffocates you), suggesting that the toxin itself had an affinity for the throat (rather than just the infection) as no diphtheria bacteria could be found.

• In Italy, in 1933, several hundred infants and children became severely ill after being injected with a hot diphtheria lot, with over 30 dying.

Note: in most of these cases, autopsies also showed damage to organs throughout the body.

Once a safer way to produce the vaccine was discovered (using a toxoid rather than a toxin), production was shifted to the new method. However, incidents still happened with these newer vaccines. For example, in 1948 in Kyoto Japan, over 600 infants and children became ill from one lot, with at least 68 dying (along with 16 more deaths in Shimane). In one sample of 15,561 who received their second injection, 606 fell ill, and 68 died from muscular paralysis (with 59 dying in 1-2 weeks), and it was later discovered these hot lots again contained the free diphtheria toxin.

Given that children were regularly dying from diphtheria, I can understand why governments around the world believed any treatment for it was justified. Nonetheless, given that in each of these cases, the diphtheria toxin maintained a remarkably consistent lethal dose (roughly one-millionth of a gram) they should have done more to ensure that quality control was in place to prevent these agonizing deaths from happening. Sadly, as we’ve seen since then, that lesson still has not been learned.

Note: there was also a 1926 case in China where 33 of 89 people who received a diphtheria toxin antitoxin injection became ill (with 5 dying), from what appeared to be streptococci contamination. Subsequent investigation revealed that the source of this contamination was likely the distilled water used to dilute it.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Century of Forgotten Vaccine Hot Lot Disasters appeared first on LewRockwell.

US preparing options for strikes inside Venezuela.

The attacks could happen “in a matter of weeks”.

The excuse is strikes inside Venezuela on alleged drug traffickers.  This is a hoax like the “Muslim Terrorist Threat” that was Washington’s excuse for its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The war on terror was a war on opponents to Greater Israel.  The war on Venezuelan drug traffickers is a continuation of Washington’s attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government dating from the Hugo Chavez years and to return Venezuela to American hands for exploitation.  Regardless of any drug traffickers, attacks on Venezuelan territory are acts of war.  Intimidation in support of American hegemony continues.  Will military attacks on drug traffickers in Mexico be next?  Is Venezuela the only country with drug traffickers?  What about Washington’s ally, Colombia?

The real reason for the military attack on Venezuela’s government, along with bagfuls of money, is to encourage the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro’s government.  It is a tactic Washington has often used on Honduras. 

Chavez earned the American establishment’s enduring hatred of Venezuela in his speech before the UN in 2006 when he said, referring to US President George W. Bush, that yesterday at this very podium stood Satan himself speaking as if he owned the world.  You can still smell the sulfur. 

Is Trump, blocked from fixing America by the Democrat Civil Service, Democrat judiciary, and Democrat media, turning to war?

If the report from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service is correct that the West is preparing a false fag attack on itself to be blamed on Russia, and the report is correct that Western troops are being placed in Moldavia and Odesa to attack the Russian forces in Transnistria, a wider war is about to break out.

False air space violations claimed by Estonia and Poland have set the stage for the West’s false flag attack on itself.  Moldavia’s excuse is that Transnistria is a part of Moldavia occupied by Russian troops.  The NATO troops allegedly in Odesa can claim to have been attacked by Russian forces in Transnistria.

The Western media, of course, will lie and blame Putin.

The post US Military/Security Complex Wants More War appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Entertainment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Margaret Anna Alice

The post We Have Been Living Through a Global Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Experiment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

The post Former Assistant Secretary of HUD Catherine Fitts: The Kirk Assassination is a PSYOP appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

See here.

The post How Charlie Kirk’s Last Day on Earth Should be Remembered appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

See here.

The post Catholics Sing Salve Regina in Memory of Charlie Kirk at TPUSA HQ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

The post Inside the Assassination Game: Michael Yon on Charlie Kirk, Zionists and Global Chaos 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. Health Myths Exposed: Learn How to Avoid Deadly Health Myths-Add 10 Years to Your Life
   
2. JFK and RFK’s Secret Battle Against Zionist Extremism: The Documentary Evidence
3. Skip College: Launch Your Career Without Debt, Distractions, or a Degree
   
4. Over the Counter Natural Cures, Expanded Edition: Take Charge of Your Health in 30 Days with 10 Lifesaving Supplements for under $10
   
5. Word Workout: Building a Muscular Vocabulary in 10 Easy Steps
6. Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times
7. Treat Your Own Neck 5th Ed
8. The One-Minute Cure: The Secret to Healing Virtually All Diseases
   
9. Be Smart Pay Zero Taxes: Use the Buy, Borrow, Die Strategy to Get Rich and Stay Rich 
   
10. Raising a Vaccine Free Child
    
11. THE LIGHT DOCTOR: Using Light to Boost Health, Improve Sleep, and Live Longer 
    
12. Somatic Exercises for Nervous System Regulation: 90+ Simple Techniques to Release Trauma, Reduce Tension, and Alleviate Anxiety and Stress in Just 10 Minutes a Day
13. Never Feel Old Again: Aging Is a Mistake–Learn How to Avoid It (Never Be) 
    
14. An Avocado a Day: More than 70 Recipes for Enjoying Nature’s Most Delicious Superfood 
15. The Encyclopedia of Country Living, 50th Anniversary Edition: The Original Manual for Living Off the Land & Doing It Yourself
16. Edible Wild Plants for Beginners: The Essential Edible Plants and Recipes to Get Started 
17. How to Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: A Simple Guide to Understanding the Constitution of the United States
18. DMSO Healing Guide: Discover Dosages, Recipes, and Essential Precautions for Using Dimethyl Sulfoxide to Treat Pain, Inflammation, Chronic Conditions, and Enhance Skin Care Naturally.
19. 100 Drives, 5,000 Ideas: Where to Go, When to Go, What to Do, What to See 
    
20. The Ultimate Bible Character Guide 

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

At the memorial service for Charlie Kirk (billed as a spiritual “revival” by pastors and evangelicals in attendance), the keynote speaker, President Donald Trump, said the following:

In that private moment on his dying day, we find everything we need to know about who Charlie Kirk truly was. He was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose. He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry. I am sorry, Erika. But now Erika can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that’s not right, but I can’t stand my opponents. [Emphasis added]

Everyone (including MAGA and the evangelical delusionals) have known since the Republican primary in 2016 that Trump is a morally, ethically and spiritually corrupt human being. That is a hard, stone-cold fact. And this fact is universally known. And if Jerry Falwell Jr. (who was likewise morally corrupt) had not enthusiastically endorsed Trump in the Republican primary—no doubt, due to the fact that Trump’s Zionist spies had photographs of Falwell’s corruption that could be used against him or kept hidden for his endorsement, which he gave—Trump might not have ever been nominated, much less elected. Back then, the evangelical world still had a few scruples and seriously hesitated to support such a completely corrupted candidate.

Those days are long gone. Today, Donald Trump’s corruption corrupts everyone he touches—including America’s evangelicals.

On his Instagram page, Tim Whitaker comments on Trump’s audacious “confession”:

I need you to really understand the context that these words were said in. This is President Trump talking at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service. This was billed not just as a service honoring Charlie Kirk but as a revival. There were worship leaders baptizing this event in the name of Jesus. People raising their hands, lifting up their voices, praising Jesus Christ, the same Jesus that taught His followers to love their enemies.

And Trump gets up and says that he hates his enemies. And the crowd: They cheer. They cheer it on.

This is why we say that white evangelical Christianity in America is morally and theologically bankrupt. They do not worship a Jesus that you find in the red letters. They worship a Jesus of empire. They don’t believe in liberating the poor and the oppressed. They believe in a gospel for the rich and the powerful.

And here they are cheering on the words that are in complete opposition to the teachings of Jesus, and they can’t even see it. In their mind, they’re following true Christianity. Anyone who’s not like them is a heretic, preaches a false gospel, needs to be destroyed.

Friends, this is the gospel of the flag and the cross, and it always produces disastrous results.

Amen, Tim!

But Trump’s hypocrisy goes even deeper than “confessing” (boasting) that he hates his opponents during a memorial service for a man who was being eulogized for having the character to love his opponents.

And before proceeding, Trump even used the lesser term for adversary, “opponents,” not the greater term, “enemies.”

Merriam-Webster defines “opponent” as: “One that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict).”

Merriam-Webster defines “enemy” as: “One that is antagonistic to another; especially: one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent; something harmful or deadly; military adversary; a hostile unit or force.”

Jesus told His disciples: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:44 KJV)

Jesus commanded His disciples to love their enemies, those seeking to injure, overthrow them, those seeking to do something harmful or deadly against them. Trump was talking about simple political opponents, those who take an opposite political position from his. “I hate my opponents,” Trump emphatically declared, targeting 58% of the American people who disapprove of his job performance.

In his “confession,” Trump also told the world (and the evangelicals, if they were listening, which they weren’t) that he is NOT a Christian; he is NOT a “born again” child of God. Listen to the Apostle John:

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (I John 2:9, 11)

By publicly announcing his hatred for his opponents, Trump is declaring that he hates anyone who opposes him regardless if they are his brothers or sisters in Christ, because many “born again” Christians oppose his political policies and philosophies. But the opposing political policies and philosophies held by Christian believers are determined NOT by personality or political party but by sincerely held spiritual and moral convictions of the heart—convictions placed there by the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, Natural Law, moral conscience and the understanding of constitutionalism and American history.

Saint John said even more:

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. (I John 3:15)

By saying he hates his political opponents, which includes millions of “born again” Christians, the Holy Spirit-inspired Apostle John says that Donald Trump is a murderer.

And we know that Trump is a murderer—and not just in a spiritual sense.

On his podcast, George Galloway said in his own colorful style:

Donald Trump is basically shooting people all over the world. He has now boasted that he has shot a third boat full of fishermen, if you believe the Venezuelans, or full of drug smugglers, if you believe Donald Trump. And let’s face it, Donald Trump knows a drug smuggler when he sees one. A third civilian boat has been eviscerated, obliterated from the skies by the United States military.

He’s now threatening to fight the Taliban again. He has repeatedly and is threatening to again attack Yemen. He is quite likely to be meeting Netanyahu this very day to discuss another Israeli attack on Iran. He is ready to assume sovereignty over the Gaza Strip, which will bring American forces directly into conflict with the Palestinian resistance there. And his friends have just massacred yet another huge family in the south of Lebanon.

So, if a man that may have lost his marbles is carrying around a nuclear football, we’ve got to wonder whether we need to stay in Russia in this fine worker’s apartment, or whether it’s safe to come home.

The Apostle John went on to say:

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? (I John 4:20)

Of course, we know Trump is a liar. Most Beltway politicians are pathological liars, but Donald Trump takes lying to an art form.

But Trump was not finished with his hypocrisy during his speech at Kirk’s memorial service. He also said:

Some of the very same people who spent the last eight years trying to sit in moral judgment of anyone who disagreed with them about politics suddenly started cheering for murder… Some of the very people who call you a ‘hater’ for using the wrong pronoun were filled with glee at the killing of a father with two young children, and the same commentators who this week are screaming ‘fascism’ over a canceled late-night TV show, where the anchor had no talent or no ratings, last week were implying that Charlie Kirk deserved what happened to him.

No one can ever accuse Donald Trump of lacking audacity.

But it is totally lost to Trump and his willfully blind lackeys that what he just said is exactly what he—and they—is guilty of. They are sitting in moral judgment of anyone who disagrees with them about the genocide in Gaza, and they are cheering on the mass murders taking place in Gaza by the Israelis. We’re not talking about one man with two small children left fatherless. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of children left fatherless and motherless; hundreds of thousands of fathers and mothers left childless.

Trump went on:

No side in American politics has a monopoly on disturbed or misguided people, but there’s one part of our political community which believes they have a monopoly on truth, goodness, and virtue — and concludes they also have a monopoly on power, thought, and speech.

Yes, indeed!

And it is Trump and his followers that think they have a monopoly on truth, goodness and virtue and DO have a monopoly on power. Trump monopolizes the power of the Justice Department, Congress, the judiciary and the U.S. armed forces—and he uses all of that power against HIS political opponents, domestically and internationally.

And the cold, hard fact is: Most of these opponents are Trump’s opponents; they are not America’s opponents. Trump uses the force of arms at his disposal as President of the United States (much of which is NOT constitutionally provided to him) to fight his own personal battles and the personal battles of his Jewish billionaire donors.

But there’s more from Trump:

The tradition of reason and open debate that Charlie practiced is not a pillar of our democracy; in many ways it’s the basis of our entire society… We will defend it at all costs.

The sheer magnitude of hypocrisy contained in this statement is off the charts. Truly, there are no words to accurately describe it.

Reason and open debate . . . We will defend it at all costs. 

What malarkey!

The Trump administration is doing everything it can to squelch the freedom of reason and open debate. People all over America are being denied earned degrees due to the reason and open debate that Trump doesn’t like. They are being denied an education. They are being jailed. They are being deported. They are losing tenure. They are losing credentials. They are losing positions. They are losing incomes. All because Trump does NOT tolerate reason and open debate—especially when it comes to Israel.

And, of course, Trump purposely avoided discussing Charlie Kirk’s change of heart in not supporting Israel that he was expressing in the weeks leading up to his assassination. He also failed to mention that Charlie Kirk himself told friends that he felt that Israel would assassinate him due to his change of heart.

I invite readers to watch my short video Charlie Kirk Assassination Update here.

It is truly incredible that at an event organized and conducted by mostly professing Christians (including pastors) in which the primary focus of the deceased man’s virtue was his openness to discuss his views with any and all detractors and his tolerance and love for those same people was turned into a forum for the American emperor to boast about his hatred for his opponents, and those same “Christians” laughed, clapped and cheered.

And afterward, they called it a “revival.”

Maybe it was a revival, but a revival of what? Totalitarianism and monarchy? Religious Inquisition?

Once again, Donald Trump did what only Donald Trump can do. What began as a celebration of love for Charlie Kirk was turned into a celebration of hate for Trump’s opponents.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Donald Trump Publicly Confessed That He Is Filled With Hate appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is more true awareness in social media about this terrorism case than in previous cases.  That shot surely was fired by a professional soldier or sharpshooter, not Tyler Robinson.  The Utah governor broke the news that Tyler Robinson is “not cooperating”:

“Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer is ‘not co-operating’ with authorities and has not confessed to carrying out the shooting, Utah’s governor Spencer Cox has said.” – BBC, September 14.

It’s good that he is not cooperating, means he’s lucid.  His mother and father are like his main accusers.  Since he rejected the accusations at the police station, we may wonder how his family, and its retired deputy sheriff friend, got him to go there.  Consider how the parents made their accusation (NYT news, emphasis mine):

“… she saw a photograph of the gunman on the news and thought that the image of a slender young man dressed in dark clothes… looked like her 22-year-old son, Tyler Robinson, law-enforcement officials said.”  “Mr. Robinson’s mother showed the photo to her husband, who agreed that the gunman looked like their son.”

His father said his son “implied” he was the shooter in a phone call between the two (CNN).  Now that Tyler has failed to “cooperate,” will the parents still accuse him?  Such accusation grounds – looked like, implied – are meaningless, but there’s a large cache of “evidence” gathered again against another very young man with no prior criminal record, who was a “stellar student in high school,” and who went from “scholarship student to wanted man.”  (NYT)

Let’s look at the evidence against him, which actually exonerates him.  We may not agree totally, but we should agree on the main facts.

.-  There is a text, allegedly of Robinson, saying that he had hidden the rifle somewhere in the university.  That would explain why there’s no rifle in the stairway pictures.  In the second pictures released, one shows him entering a building – we see the outside area.  The first two pictures released look less like Tyler, so to speak (they don’t look like him at all to me), and appear to be taken higher up.  The second ones show a closer look-alike, but there is no clear shot of his face.  I see they’re two different men and neither one is Tyler Robinson.  In this link, you can zoom these first two pictures.  Reporters should ask for more pictures, clearer ones; and the defense lawyer should.

The second released pictures can be seen in this link.

FBI releases new photos of the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s shooting.

So, the pictures are not of who they pretend to be (in my eyes), and they’re two different impostors.  Why not only one impostor for all fake pictures (and videos)?  It’s a terrorism case, that’s why.

One might as well ask why, on 9-11, the second “plane” went through the southern wall without exploding; why or how does it explode, in all videos, only after it is totally inside; also ask why, after it explodes, the plane nose emerges intact through the northern wall before exploding too (I treated this in an article titled “On Terrorism”) – and for that matter even ask why it’s like nobody notices.

.-  The decisive evidence that conclusively proves Tyler Robinson was set up as “the patsy” is the video showing “him” jumping down from the roof as he escapes.  In all pictures the culprit goes up the stairway, and someone could say the rifle was waiting upstairs, but there is no justification for the absence of the rifle in the escape video.  He left the rifle in the woods nearby, so it has to be seen or noticed in this video.  It’s not, though.

.-  It’s a bolt-action Mauser rifle (98 model).  He has something that waves in his hand, but we see a light object, not such a rifle.  He probably had a plastic in his hand with a black sweater around it.

.-  Pointlessly, he allegedly ran away with the rifle to leave it in the wooded area close to the university.  If he had no rifle to be seen, he might as well take it with him or throw it away somewhere else.  Some could say that the leg started hurting from such a high jump, and that he couldn’t carry it anymore, but that’s outside the video (which shows no rifle), and this video is finally the most conclusive evidence that Tyler Robinson is innocent of this crime, and therefore just a patsy set up by the perpetrator(s).  Determining the perpetrator(s) requires a deep investigation, with access to information, etc., which a private citizen doesn’t have.  However, based on what is published, one can detect and point to the evil supernatural power behind this terrorism.

.-  The video makes it look like it’s an easy jump.  We have problems with this jump too.  The police need to analyze this jump – it’s not easy like that.

The bolt-action Mauser rifle, reported to be an “older model,” weighs about nine pounds.  It’s not a foldable rifle; it’s not in the backpack.  Normally, anyone would throw the rifle down before jumping from a building, to survive the jump.  But not the figure in this video.  Those who don’t own such a rifle may consider a ten-pound dumbbell for comparison.  There’s no way someone with Tyler’s built jumps from that height with a rifle in his right hand, landing and running like in this video.  Even without the rifle, it’s not doable.

He jumps from the 12th rung of the ladder seen below in the link at the end.  To the roof top, it’s more than 16 rungs of this fireman’s ladder which doesn’t reach that high. This lower jumping spot is still a ceiling height.  Even from something like 2 meters, you may hurt yourself if you try to land in a squat position like he does.

This unbelievable jump is in fact the stuff of terrorism, and it’s a crucial type moment: The authorities must overcome this deception.  The deception is the enemy itself.  If people in general will swallow impossible facts with their ridiculous scenarios, then they cannot fight terrorism.  It cannot be that if the evil is too big you regress into childhood.  Someone who didn’t make that jump is being blamed for this attack.

Consider the frame of a door.  He is jumping from higher than that.  Let’s not forget, for a second, that this shooter supposedly had a rifle that is about nine pounds heavy with ammunition (chances are a Mauser rifle was not even used).

The lowest point to which his hamstrings reach upon landing is to a “parallel squat” level, as you see at 0.08 in the video below (freezing it), and he’s already rising up at 0.09, which is impossible really.  The figure doesn’t even land in a deep squat position – doesn’t fall on the ground as part of landing.  The rifle, which he would have in his right hand, doesn’t hit the ground; the right hand doesn’t even touch the ground.  Can Tyler Robinson do this?  It lands like a comics figure (superman, spider-man, that kind of thing).  He picks up something from the ground, but no rifle.

The figure in this escape video most definitely is not Tyler Robinson.  Such a reality determines what is happening in the attack – that it’s a terrorist attack again.  This video’s actual details should be studied and examined well by the FBI (perhaps by some of the other American intelligence agencies too).

What is it if not Tyler Robinson?  The case against him falls by its own weight.  It could be computer graphics, I suppose (but don’t know).  It could be directly supernatural evil.  It’s like the second 9-11 “plane.”  What is that?  Well, it can’t be a commercial plane for sure, unless a United Airlines plane can demonstrate that its parts go through concrete and steel walls like the one on 9-11 does in all the videos, whether they are from the TV networks or from others.  A real investigation of 9-11 could begin right there (it won’t ignore it!); a serious rebuttal may appear funny involuntarily if their scenario is too absurd (I wrote an article, by the way, titled “Book Adventures at eBay,” in a light vein).

I say that a human being cannot jump from the height this figure does, landing in a squat position where the butt does not touch the ground.  For example, no professional football wide receiver can do that.  The New York Times reported that Tyler likes to read comic books and play video games – nobody says he’s an athlete.  Wouldn’t you agree by now that it’s 100% sure he is not the jumper in the video?

I described the terrorism “power” in “On Terrorism” as being “hate” itself, as having zero intelligence, thus zero power in reality.  If it’s a circumscribed power, it’s a damned power, which we can notice.   Is the supernatural attacker here the same one as the 9-11 attacker (rhetorical question)?  Exactly the same one in all such terrorist attacks (I’m not digressing).  What seconds 0.08-0.09 show is better appreciated at the lowest playback speed of 0.25.

The post On the Assassination of Charles Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

I don’t hate anyone.  It’s not how I was raised. In debate, never attack the person, but ideas are always fair game.  I think that’s what Charlie Kirk stood for and he was brave enough to do it openly on college campuses where many students (especially on the left) have been indoctrinated to be infantile and intolerant.

The left does not believe in civil debate, free speech and equal rights.  This goes back at least to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s, the father of political correctness (see his essay “Repressive Tolerance”).  Marcuse, professor of political theory from 1952-1970 at prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia, taught a fixed-pie view of the world in which there were “oppressors” and “victims.”  Those who got a bigger slice of the pie must have used nefarious means, he reasoned.  Therefore, their supposed victims should be allowed any means to even the score, including the use of violence.

From an ideas standpoint, Charlie Kirk had his faults.  He, like most on the right, did not have a solid grounding in free market economics.  E.g., he supported President Trump’s tariffs.  (Trade is win-win.  To oppose free trade is to fall back into the fixed-pie worldview of the left.)  Kirk was far too political for my taste, and was willing to flip flop on issues so as not to upset Trump.  He was the consummate politician, which meant he was willing to compromise.  He was a political activist who impelled young people to vote for Trump in droves.  He had a massive following.  And in just 11 years, he would have been old enough to run for president.

Recently, Kirk disagreed with Trump on bombing Iran, and voiced his opinion in a meeting at the White House.  This drew the ire of Trump.  In fact, the right has been fracturing over the “forever wars” in the Middle East as well as unconditional U.S. support for the state of Israel.  Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have been increasingly vocal in their opposition, and Charlie Kirk was now joining them.  To them, this is the true “America first” foreign policy.

In fact, Charlie Kirk had long been a loyal supporter of Israel and had major pro-Israel donors all the way back to Turning Point USA’s founding 13 years ago.  His backers had flown him to Israel many times.  But something in him snapped after the October 7, 2023 massacre.  Things didn’t add up and he was starting to ask questions.  He invited Tucker Carlson to speak at his annual conference; when Carlson claimed that Jeffrey Epstein was controlled by the Mossad and running a sex ring to blackmail U.S. politicians, and everyone in DC knew it, the audience erupted in applause.  Needless to say, Kirk’s pro-Israel donors were not amused, putting tremendous pressure on him to cancel Carlson and get back in line.  Benjamin Netanyahu even invited him to visit Israel, but Kirk turned him down.  Netanyahu also promised to line up more financial support.  Kirk turned down the money.

This is what I will remember about Charlie Kirk: a man who believed in civil debate, got many ideas wrong, but had the courage to challenge long-held beliefs.  That, and he left behind a beautiful family, a wife and two daughters, just 1 and 3.

Who killed him?  We’ll probably never know with certainty, but it sure looks like a professional hit.  I’ve added it to my Pearly Gates questions.

(This essay will appear in the upcoming issue of The Coffee Can Portfolio.)

The post The Death of Civility appeared first on LewRockwell.

Henry David Thoreau was one of America’s most eloquent and incisive philosophers. His derision of unjust laws in his essay on “Civil Disobedience” is still catnip 175 years later. His summons to individuals to march to the beat of their own drum is a message that will continue to resonate as long as drums and dissonance exist. Thoreau vividly debunked the folly of people squandering their lives stockpiling unnecessary possessions.

But in his final years, Thoreau mutated into an apologist for bloodthirsty fanaticism and helped foment the American Civil War. Thoreau’s derision of prosperity and of freedom of contract continue to animate anti-capitalist zealots in our time. When Thoreau presumed he was rising above mere economic considerations, he was paving the road to serfdom.

Thoreau’s best-known work is Walden—his chronicle of living by a Massachusetts pond for a couple years. In the book’s peak piety passage, Thoreau declared, “None can be an impartial or wise observer of human life but from the vantage ground of what we should call voluntary poverty.” But Thoreau’s poverty was a kabuki performance. His cabin was a mere 20 minutes away from his mother’s dinner table, where he often took repast.

In the years before the Civil War, Thoreau was almost alone in howling that affluence was damning America. Thoreau bewailed that people were being “ruined by luxury and heedless expense” and proclaimed that the “only cure… is in a rigid economy, a stern and more than Spartan simplicity of life and elevation of purpose.” Thoreau’s definition of “heedless expense” apparently included anyone not living in a ramshackle cabin like his at Walden. In the 1840s, the average house in the United States had about 1000 square feet and was occupied by 5.5 people, according to the Census Bureau. People had no indoor plumbing, refrigerators, central heating, or electricity. Did Thoreau believe that Americans would be loftier souls if those 5.5 people were squeezed into 550 square feet instead of a thousand square feet of living space? “Ruined by luxury” was not the reason why the average life expectancy in Massachusetts in the 1840s was 38 years.

Thoreau whooped up minimalism as the one true liberation. “With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meager life than the poor,” he declared in Walden. Barely 20 miles from his cabin, Boston was being deluged by haggard souls fleeing a famine that killed 10 percent of the population of Ireland. Many new arrivals squeezed into ramshackle tenements, plagued by outbreaks of typhoid, cholera, and tuberculosis. Food was sparse and diets were rarely healthy, helping spur a far higher mortality rate among Irish immigrants than other city residents. Thoreau disdained the Irish for their “coarse” and “brutish” ways. Thoreau scoffed that “often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune.” My ancestors fled Ireland’s infamous potato famine and arrived in America while Thoreau was at Walden.

Thoreau’s Original Sin is his contempt for voluntary exchange among private citizens. Thoreau proclaimed that “trade curses everything it handles.” Thoreau talked as if there was a spiritual calculus that made society poorer every time that two parties made a mutually profitable agreement.

Except, of course, when Thoreau was the one profiting. Thoreau boasted that he grew seven miles of rows of beans at Walden. His memoir would have been more candid if he added a postscript to his jeremiad: “Trade is a great evil and… hey buddy, ya wanna buy some beans?” Thoreau sold his surplus beans and bought rice, pork, molasses, apples, and farming supplies. Do people lose part of their soul when they swap beans for bacon or what?

Thoreau proclaimed that “trade curses everything it handles; and though you trade in messages from heaven, the whole curse of trade attaches to the business.” Except when you get a really good price for your “messages from heaven.” Thoreau had the best volunteer literary agent in America—New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley—whom Thoreau met when he was briefly tutoring on Staten Island. Greeley arranged to sell one of Thoreau’s essays for $75 in 1849. This was more than double what Thoreau spent to build his house at Walden—$28.12—and more than 8 times as much as Thoreau’s profit from growing beans—$8.71. (The only way that Thoreau showed a profit from those beans was presuming that his own labor was worthless.) That $75 in 1849 would be roughly $2500 in current dollars, excellent pay nowadays for an essay for 99 percent of aspiring writers. Thoreau paused his principles long enough to cash the check. Greeley wanted to sell more such pieces but Thoreau preferred to devote himself to writing books instead of articles.

Thoreau’s disdain for voluntary exchanges is dicey to reconcile with how he survived selling his own talents. He declared in Walden, “For myself I found that the occupation of a day-laborer was the most independent of any, especially as it required only thirty or forty days in a year to support one.” Thoreau—whose townsmen recognized as a Harvard University graduate—wasn’t hiring himself out to dig ditches. His primary income in his thirties and early forties came from his work as a surveyor that paid double or triple the wage received by unskilled labor. By developing a well-paid talent, Thoreau earned enough working part time to help pay to publish his first book, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (1849).

Thoreau thrived before surveyors were compelled to get prior approval from officialdom. Entry into almost a third of all occupations is now restricted by government licensing. Government regulations have spurred credentialist mania that make it more difficult to thrive without a college degree. Government restrictions and mandates have imposed far more barriers to independent living than most Thoreau fans recognize.

Thoreau—like other Transcendentalists—had a weakness for moral absolutes that could quickly spiral into drivel. Thoreau castigated railroads and declared that “the swiftest traveler is he that goes afoot.” A day’s wages at that point was 90 cents—which was the same fare for 30 miles rail travel. Thoreau said it would be faster to simply walk that distance rather than do a day’s work and then pay to ride the railroad. Thoreau proclaimed this as “the universal law, which no man can ever outwit, and with regard to the railroad even we may say it is as broad as long.”

Thoreau neglected to include the expiration date for his “universal law.” Thoreau’s “rebuttal” of rail travel was practically out of date by the time Walden was printed 8 years after he left the pond. Rail travel had plunged in price by the end of the century, with some routes costing only a penny a mile for non-first-class passengers. At the same time, wages for unskilled laborers in Massachusetts more than tripled during the 1800s.

Thoreau railed against railroads in part because they were binding together broader swaths of humanity than local towns and villages. Thoreau preferred to keep localities relatively isolated and untainted by humanity beyond the county line. Thoreau rhapsodized about growing beans but the farmland in his part of Massachusetts was far less productive than farmland in Ohio and Indiana. Thoreau fretted about the new competition that local farmers faced but ignored how soaring agricultural productivity could greatly reduce the percentage of people toiling on the land to feed themselves and their families.

Thoreau was able to conduct his “experiment in living” because his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson had recently bought a 14-acre patch of land by that pond. Emerson could afford to buy that parcel in part thanks to the profits from his essay “Self-Reliance,” published a few years earlier. Emerson allowed Thoreau to temporarily live on that land in return for clearing some of the briars and trees.

Private land ownership was the prerequisite of Thoreau’s independent living. What would have happened if Thoreau had tried to do the same thing on land owned by the National Park Service (which was not created until 1916)? The authorities might have viewed him as a squatter and burned down his cabin including all his books and manuscripts in progress while he was out fishing.

While Thoreau portrays private possessions as burdens to self-liberation, earlier Americans recognized property as a bulwark of freedom. In the 18th century, property was equated with “liberty because property secured independence. Material goods were valued less for their market worth, as a means of economic development, or as a capital resource, than as a guarantee of individual autonomy,” as law professor John Phillip Reid noted in his classic work, The Concept of Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution. Such autonomy allows people to follow their own values or seek to build their own destiny. Hungarian economist Janos Kornai—a courageous dissident in the Soviet Bloc—observed in 1981: “The further elimination of private ownership is taken, the more consistently can full subjection be imposed.” Perhaps that is why so many environmentalists and leftists nowadays want to destroy private property.

We can appreciate Thoreau’s brilliance while rejecting his follies. It is possible to avoid deifying possessions without glorifying poverty. Seeking to “rise above economics” too often merely unleashes politicians to drag nations to their ruin.

The post Henry David Thoreau and the Well-Worn Road to Serfdom appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mr. President, most people I know say you can’t and wouldn’t repudiate the Evil Ones known as the Jewish Lobby, Media, and the Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class AKA the Deep State. You owe them your election andmay think you need them to stay in Office, but you have the power to stop them before they destroy your presidency and kill you. I don’t say this lightly. The stakes for the evil ones is in the Trillions of Dollars, and they have proven that they will kill for less, much less.

Mr. President, let me give you one small example that exceeds 10% of government income of $428.4 Billion, which is cost of Foreign Aid, Foreign Troop Deployment and Bases. If you add the cost of pure Treason for support of Illegal Invaders, the total is  $578.6 Billion. Simply not spending this amount indicated could revive the American Dream and bankrupt some of the Evil Ones.

President George Washington said it best in his farewell speech: WE HAVE NO DIRECT INTEREST IN EUROPE’S WARS. I would strongly say that we have no Direct Interest in any county except with our own domestic Communism, aka Democrats and illegal Invaders. We can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction or from within.

Illegal Invaders must be deported as quickly as possible, regardless of cost, before the 2030 Census. Mr. President, there is no doubt that most members of Congress are both petrified and well- bribed by the Evil Ones. Most Members of Congress are Violating their oath of office for bribes and should be investigated, charged, prosecuted and  imprisoned. I estimate that half of the federal government is a Criminal Enterprise with no legal justification for its existence, none. Verify for yourself in the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution.

Mr. President, there are thousands of unconstitutional federal agencies, departments and functions, most of which can be eliminated with an Executive Order because they don’t exist legally. Mr. President, you could start by terminating the Federal Reserve Bank and Fiat currency. End inflation, give us back gold and silver currency with an Executive Order. The evil ones will go insane because they know that if they lose the Federal Reserve Bank and Fiat currency, they will lose control of the country and Trillions of dollars.

Mr. President, You are funding ongoing Communism in Blue Inner-Cities. This is insane. Many people believe that most residents of inner- cities were born out of wedlock, that 50% of babies are aborted and the others are raised by single mothers financed by government, for life, without support of fathers who continue fornicating. Note, it is unlawful to give any Federal Funds to states, so you can use an Executive Order to terminate such  unlawful programs.

Mr. President, the coup of 1913 brought in the Income Tax that reversed the roles of the states and federal government. Prior to 1913, the Federal Government was financed with tariffs and excise taxes. Income Taxes gave a substantial portion of consumer income to the federal government, allowing it to usurp state functions and concentrate power in DC. You could terminate income tax or give a large portion of it to states, while terminating all federal payments to states. Our Constitutional Republic will not function without changes to the income tax.

Mr. President, I voted for you because I believed that you had Charisma, Knowledge, Courage , Integrity and the Support of the People. You are not perfect, but you have done more for American People than any President in the last 100 years. But now you are guilty of two major sins that can destroy you and the country:

1. You are supporting Genocide in Gaza for which the entire world is denouncing us, and our own People are two-to-one against our support of Israel. This is not the way to elect more Republicans. We have been in many conflicts in the area in support of Israel. We have No Direct Interest in any other country and we should bring our troops home and end Foreign Aid.

2. Your election saved us from a civil war and bought time for your programs to forestall the looming Economic Collapse. But so far you have refused to terminate unconstitutional programs and follow the Constitution, which is the only way that we can survive an Economic Dystopia and remain as a Constitutional Republic. You have not indicated that you understand the effects of the role reversal caused by the income tax.

Mr. President, I really believe that you are the right man at the right time to save our country but you must repudiate the Jewish lobby, et al., and return to the Constitution, otherwise failure is guaranteed.

The post President Trump, Divorce the Jewish Lobby, Media, and Deep State To Save Yourself and Our Republic. appeared first on LewRockwell.