Aggregatore di feed

We are nine months into the Donald Trump presidency and the road ahead seems pretty clear. There is an unsustainable one trillion dollar Pentagon budget supporting a newly renamed Department of War and Washington is engaged in conflicts that could escalate in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. If it were possible to stage a bellicose incident near or in Antarctica that would also no doubt become a target, just as the Arctic region is currently playing into fantasies involving Greenland and Canada. Trump has even stopped talking to friendly neighbor Canada about trade relations over an ad that he did not like and no doubt will be discussing invasion soon. And let’s not forget the conflict here at home where Trump is citing the Insurrection Act regularly, signaling his intention to expand the already existing use of the military to carry out law enforcement functions in America’s states and cities, something that is of questionable legality under the Posse Comitatus Act.

The supreme irony is that all of the conflicts have been unnecessary, involving as they do countries and entire geographic regions that in no way threaten either the United States or what were once referred to as its vital interests except insofar as those interests have been grossly and one might suggest criminally misrepresented. That is what we are witnessing right now as what appears to be fishermen are being murdered by US forces positioned in the international waters of the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. In the latest incident involving sinking a Colombian vessel and killing two crewmen in the Pacific, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro denounced the crime and was in turn called a “thug” by Trump, who once again has demonstrated his skill at diplomacy. Trump has also warned that the war on “narco-terrorists” might well shift from the sea to “on land” in the countries being targeted, meaning that they will be invaded with the intention of regime change.

Russia, which is now on-again to being regarded as an opponent, is having its energy companies sanctioned, yet again, even though it has respectable and clearly defined national security interests that Trump has failed to comprehend. And there are also reports possibly linked to Trump’s ongoing feud with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Wednesday, when he blasted the paper for a “FAKE NEWS” report that the Trump Administration had lifted “a key restriction” on Ukraine, allowing it to use long-range Tomahawk missiles against Russia. WSJ reported the green light from Trump would empower Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is of course Jewish and is also strongly supported by Israel to such an extent that Zelensky has said “that when the Ukraine War is over, Ukraine will be a “big Israel.” The new missiles provided by Washington, if the repot is accurate, will be used to “step up attacks on targets inside Russia” and put added pressure on Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to agree to the ceasefire demanded by the White House. The missiles were reportedly given to Ukraine by its “Western allies.” As the US would have to play a part in targeting and launching the missiles, the move would bring the US directly into the war.

Iran, meanwhile, has never threatened the US and currently Venezuela and Colombia are not enemies except in the demented minds of Mr Trump and his cabinet. The US has no authority to “obliterate” the Palestinians in Gaza as Trump has recently threatened if Hamas does not comply with his orders, a threat that is particularly loathsome as it is being suggested as a “gift” to the most evil country in the world, Israel. During a visit to Israel on Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance repeated the warning that Hamas would be “obliterated” if it did not cooperate with the ceasefire — taking off from a similar threat from Trump, who earlier also promised “fast, furious and brutal force.”

Instead, the wars that are being ginned-up reflect the desire of America’s supreme leader to appear to be a tough guy who claims that the United States by right ought to dominate the world, all in spite of his own personal history as a draft dodger when it was his turn to fight for his country in an admittedly bad cause during the Vietnam War. Apparently shaking one’s tiny fist in the air while grimacing threateningly and punishing critics using the power and resources of the federal government is now regarded by some as what the American public expects in a president. At least that is the way that Donald Trump and his cast of clowns see it since they seem to be completely lacking any sense of the dignity expected of the American presidency. Oh, and along the way, the fawning claque is required to regularly heap praise on the Sovereign Leader, who now self-proclaims as arguably the third greatest president this country has ever had after Washington and Lincoln, by telling him what a genius and great man he is.

Those of us who are skeptical of the outpouring of homage to the Great Chief see a man who cannot even articulate a sentence properly. And in staff meetings in the White House he often cannot remember the name of whoever is sitting or standing next to him, but no matter, when you are set on destroying entire countries the details don’t really matter. As Trump is in reality a totally owned and operated subsidiary of the Jewish State Israel and his Jewish billionaire donors, which amount to the same thing, the rat line from Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, which also increasingly owns the US media, will cover up the inconsistencies. It will also deep-six the stories that would diminish the grandeur of the Trump White House, complete with the under- construction status of a magnificent ball room that will accommodate up to 1,000 worshippers. Too bad about the destruction of the White House East Wing, which will also be offset by the proposed “Trump-ful” memorial arch just down the Potomac from the Trump Center for the Performing Arts. There is also a bill in Congress to fund adding the sculpture of Trump’s magnificent head and stern visage to the Mount Rushmore Memorial in South Dakota, alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

Trump’s total engagement with Israel and his complete subjugation at the hands of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he describes as a great war hero, just like himself, means that there is little that comes out of the White House that does not obtain the seal of approval from Tel Aviv. There are certainly bizarre anecdotes that one might share nearly every time Trump opens his mouth, but the tales of government by idiots are sometimes difficult to comprehend due to their sheer inanity. If there remains some hope that the United States is somehow a sinking ship that might some day right itself, it is perhaps best just to assume that the real criminal behavior comes out of Israel, like the fraudulent “Trump Peace Plan” for Gaza currently being floated to serve the Israeli interest in creating a Palestine free of Palestinians. Trump’s two top negotiators, real estate tycoons Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, pretend to be impartial but they are both ardent Zionists who have declared that there has been no genocide going on in Gaza, a judgment which ninety per cent of the world would disagree with. The two would, not coincidentally perhaps, be likely to earn billions from the reconstruction of Gaza and turning it into the Trump Riviera resort. No Palestinians allowed, of course and the latest word coming from the “Peace Planners” is that Gaza reconstruction will only take place in the part of the Strip occupied by the Israeli Army.

But one of my favorite tales relates to the Nobel Peace Prize, which is a curious tale that involves both Donald Trump and Israel. The surprise winner of the prize Maria Machado, is an opponent of the current government headed by Nicolas Maduro, whom the US (and Trump personally) has opposed since a failed coup in May 2020, which Washington’s Drug Enforcement Administration may have organized and supported. As a consequence of the pressure from Washington, Maduro has broken off diplomatic relations with the US. He also is an outspoken critic of Israel’s behavior in Gaza. Machado has discerned an opportunity to obtain substantial foreign support, so she has praised Trump and has called on both the United States and Israel to intervene in her country and overthrow the government, replacing it, presumably, with her. So is the impending war with Venezuela, which will presumably kill lots of people, in some way linked to Trump and Israel? You betcha!

Even better than Machado is the recent Trumpean nonsense regarding Argentina which will cost tons of US taxpayer money and which actually has American ranchers crying out about how their livelihoods are being ruined. How the Israel control mechanism works is well exemplified by Trump’s interaction with Argentine President Javier Milei. Milei has expressed his deep admiration for Trump and for the state of Israel, which is a prerequisite for robbing the American taxpayer, a sleight of hand that Israel and its Tribe are particularly good at. Best of all, the wholesale theft is carried out under the protective aegis of the Congressional Antisemitism Awareness Act, which declares that criticism of Israel is motivated by “antisemitism” and therefore a “hate crime.”

Milei has been in the news lately because Trump has given him a $20 billion “swap line” bailout as a loan with Argentina’s central bank, where the US Treasury will exchange dollars for pesos to support the peso and the country’s credit market. Trump has also called for the importation of 80,000 tons of cheap Argentine beef to bring down prices in the US, a move objected to by American farmers who are reported to be struggling due to the bad economy and soaring prices.

Milei comes from an Italian family and was raised Roman Catholic, but he has nurtured a relationship with the large Argentine Jewish community and also with the state of Israel, which he has officially visited, praying at the Wailing Wall and moving his embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has also met with Benjamin Netanyahu and has reportedly stated his desire to convert to Judaism, but by one account he deferred that possibility when he was elected to the presidency due to the need to be engaged in office on the Jewish sabbath, on which no work could be performed. Nevertheless, his relationship with Jews and Israel is regarded as extremely strong and he boasts that his country is Israel’s best friend in Latin America. It is a position that is somewhat unusual for Latin America and something that Donald Trump, who may himself have converted to Judaism and has a daughter who has done so, greatly respects. So Milei gets the cash from the United States!

It is interesting to note how nearly every time one looks at an aspect of US foreign policy, to include Donald Trump’s penchant to resort to threats of violence which periodically turn into wars, the state of Israel comes up. Polls indicate that the American public is becoming increasingly aware of Israeli dominance of the White House whether it is inhabited by a Joe Biden or a Donald Trump. It is past time for a thorough cleaning at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue beyond the building of a new gilded ballroom to restore the People’s House to the People and to throw the Zionist Israel-First crooks out never to return. Let us hope that the revolution to restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights and to end both the wars and the Israel connection comes soon before it is too late!

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post A Nation At War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

I thought this was an interesting video. The Beatles song “Taxman” mentions both “Mr. Wilson” and “Mr. Heath.” Heath and Nixon both made a lot of mistakes in 1974. Income and price controls never work. They just make things worse. 

The post 1974 Explained: The Year that Almost Crushed Britain appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin  wrote

Corrupt crony capitalism at its worst.

See also this.

The post The REAL Reason We’re Giving $40 Billion To Argentina Is UNBELIEVABLE! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Progressive Era, by Murray N. Rothbard

EDITED BY
PATRICK NEWMAN

FOREWORD BY
JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

In the last decades of Murray Rothbard’s life, he developed an important interpretative framework in understanding American history. This was prodded on by his careful study of the emerging “new political history” which was reinterpreting the dynamics of the ebb and flow of ethnocultural and ethnoreligious groups. This bold synthesis became the central focus of some of his greatest scholarly endeavors, particularly when it came to understanding progressivism as a secularized version of this postmillennial religious zeal.

In his brilliant book, The Progressive Era, (which I believe to be his greatest work) Rothbard provided the Rosetta Stone to understanding the origins of the welfare/warfare state in America: the role of postmillennial Protestant pietistic intellectuals and activists born in the crucial decade surrounding the Civil War who, because of the seductive allure and influence of the evolutionary naturalism of Darwinism, came of age increasingly secularized, but who did not forsake their faith in statism and elitist social control.

In particular, read the wonderful foreword to this book by Judge Andrew Napolitano. His experience studying the Progressive Era at Princeton amazingly mirrors that of myself at the University of Tulsa.

Each week, Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger and Misean economist Richard M. Ebeling discuss the hot topics of the day.

In the video below Jacob and Richard discussed the disaster of progressivism. I cannot stress enough the importance of this dialog. This concise 30 minute conversation encapsulates the most brilliant and enlightening synthesis of ideas and history concerning the origins and roots of this pernicious intellectual movement, both at home and abroad.

Ebeling concisely traces these concepts from their 19th century Marxian notions of the dynamic class struggle of history, that history, according to Karl Marx, inevitably moved in a “progressive” direction from primitive pre-industrial societies, to a feudal order, to industrial capitalism, will move onward towards socialism (and the dictatorship of the proletariat), finally to the ultimate stage of history, communism. Any movement away from this cyclical direction was “reactionary” or regressive.

In perhaps the highlight of his remarks, he builds upon the pioneering insights of Murray Rothbard and others in focusing upon the crucial development of the welfare-warfare state in Germany under chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and Bismarck’s co-opting of the collectivist program of the Marxian Social Democrats into a Bismarxian hybrid to enhance state power and control.

Again, as Rothbard elucidated, generations of key American graduate students attended German universities during this period, returning to the US transformed by these statist ideas they had absorbed. These persons, such as Richard T. Ely of the University of Wisconsin, became the first generation of progressive intellectuals and cogs within the state apparatus that moved America away from a classical liberal (libertarian) direction towards this collectivist hybrid known as progressivism.

Hornberger cogently points out the key role of the judiciary in the erosion of the constitutional safeguards against interventionism, and the pivotal model of Woodrow Wilson in establishing the matrix for all that followed. Wilson was a student of Richard Ely at Johns Hopkins.

 

The post The Progressive Era, by Murray N. Rothbard appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

DrPaulMarik

 

The post Dr. Paul Marik on the Sanitary Revolution That Transofrmed Society appeared first on LewRockwell.

Greg Privette wrote:

Hi Lew,

I saw the article by Joachim Hagopian. From that article:

In record time Trump has shown America his true colors as a dictator. Barely a month into his second term presidency, a PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) poll taken between February 28 and March 20 found that 52% of the 5,025 Americans polled agreed with the following statement:

[Trump is a] dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy

True to form the opposition completely misses the real issue due to their fetish for “democracy”. This is due to their desire to use democracy to regain the levers of power for themselves. If the opposition really wants to save the American people, rather than the American state, why not try this statement instead:

[Trump is a] dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American Liberty (at least what’s left of it)

That would be a statement I think we could all get behind.

 

The post King Trump Chronicles appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

 

The post How The World Works: Examining the Historical Dynamic of Power Elite Analysis appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Somebody decided Charlie Kirk was a danger to the status quo. The battle runs deep.” – Col. Douglas Macgregor

“Charlie Kirk was evolving to have serious concerns about Israel. His murder silences that evolution and makes him a valuable martyr to serve the very anti-Christian forces that executed him.” – Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai

I’ve spent a lot of time (I stopped counting after 250 hours) investigating the tragic Charlie Kirk assassination at Utah Valley University and have come to a few conclusions. These are my opinions based on researching information from my own sources to hundreds of sources ranging from the most prominent  – Tucker Carlson with his 16 million followers on X and Candace Owens with her 7 million X followers – to citizen reporters who have fewer than 5,000 followers to former military, snipers, hunters, and ballistics and digital imaging experts. I mainly focused on X (Twitter) information sources but much more independent reporting on the murder is available on YouTube, Rumble, Bitchute, Instagram, Facebook, Tik Tok (although new owner Larry Ellison may have something to say about it) and other social media sites. A massive number of independent journalists have written excellent articles on this traumatic and historically significant assassination with The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal setting off an avalanche of investigative reporting focusing on a possible Zionist connection.

Many lesser known investigators have conducted thoughtful video and podcast analyses including Redacted, Ryan Matta, Chris Martenson, Sam Parker, Ian Carroll, Zeb Boykin, Diligent Denizen, Project Constitution, the IntelSCIF and Jason Goodman. If someone has figured out the complete explanation of what happened on September 10, I am not aware of it. This subject has so many angles and complexities I won’t elaborate on here – for instance, a nexus between Mormonism, Zionism and Masonry – it’s enough to fill a book – but I will attempt to address a few key points.

My conclusions thus far: The official FBI narrative is preposterous and has been thoroughly debunked by many independent investigative reporters. A few of many specifics: snipers, veterans, gun enthusiasts and hunters agree the magic 30-06 bullet would have blown the back of Charlie’s head off. Despite the claims of Laura Loomer and Jack Posobiec and other influencers that we all saw a leftist shoot Charlie (we didn’t), no video of Tyler Robinson shooting the rifle has been released. Why is that? And why was the crime scene destroyed?) Robinson may indeed be the man seen running across the roof, but despite the 2024 installation of 1,000+ state of the art cameras on UVU grounds, the video released to the public was too far away to actually identify who was running.

After the assassination, attendees were allowed to roam around the campus grounds for at least 20 minutes before police ordered them to leave. Decoys (George Zinn and possibly Phil Lyman, although the wonderful podcaster Kate Dalley who lives in Utah knows Lyman and says he’s a good guy) and distractions (spotters planted in the crowd) were used and the crime scene was destroyed – literally paved over.

I believe the assassination was a complex military operation involving Israeli and US intelligence using advanced technology. Security was irresponsibly lax: Six policemen, no metal detectors and no surveillance officers to catch rooftop snipers. Attendees, while required to register by submitting personal information which can be used for data collection purposes, weren’t even asked for their tickets. An Army HADES jet lowered its altitude and dropped off ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) drones that disrupted authorized recordings and broadcasts. However, at least 35 videos were still captured and stored in an online archive. This includes Adam Bartholomew’s more than an hour long video of Kirk’s campus debate he managed to record by hard wiring his camera equipment, thereby bypassing this Bluetooth exploit event.

The scenario that seems the most plausible to me is there were two events. Video and photo analysis and audio forensics indicate perhaps a subsonic projectile shot and what has been dubbed the “exploding microphone” theory promoted by Jon Bray in his highly technical analytical videos and explanations on X. I dismissed this hypothesis weeks ago but revisited it when additional facts were uncovered. Charlie’s black microphone clasp seen on his white t-shirt was connected to a RODE battery beneath his shirt that contained a shaped charge – a plastic explosive, metal cone and pellet. The device was remotely detonated by someone in the audience, possibly the security guard wearing the beige plaid shirt standing directly in front of Charlie when he touched his arm at the exact moment Kirk was hit. The magnetic clasp/mic was propelled into his neck and then fell out of his neck making the entry point also the exit wound. A video can be seen of this object entering and exiting his neck, although it is possible the video was altered. Many dismiss this theory because no burn marks were left on his shirt, however, the residue could have been crystals which would eliminate any scorching. This scenario would involve high-tech, perhaps even classified technology. According to UFO and assassinations expert Daniel Liszt, known as Dark Journalist, advanced technology is always used in assassinations. This theory is the only one that explains the extreme billowing of Charlie’s shirt in front and back. Additionally, it was discovered that a company in Tennessee, Accurate Energetic Systems, received a contract from May-August 2025 to manufacture “miniaturized demolition charges anti-personnel to support special purpose missions.” AES delivered the product and then the factory was totally demolished in September prior to the murder. A shot may have occurred simultaneously from a low velocity gun or rifle as a decoy to cover for the high tech explosion but perhaps also for redundancy purposes.

After Charlie’s security detail (Rockhouse Integrity Group or Integrity Security Solutions?) engaged in what looked like military signaling, the team rushed immediately in lock-step motion to Kirk after the shot/explosion, as if they had rehearsed their roles. They didn’t bother to take their sunglasses off to see better, didn’t appear to be engaging in any lifesaving measure, had no blood on their hands, and looked like they were handing off items to each other. The sinister thought that these guys were actually finishing Charlie off has crossed the mind of more than a few who have closely studied the videos. And Kirk’s right arm could be seen with his fingers moving, indicating he didn’t die instantaneously as was previously claimed.

It is irresponsible for anyone to state Tyler Robinson is the assassin because even though the governor of Utah claimed, “We got him!” 33 hours after the shooting, and Kash Patel assured us the FBI has the guilty man, under our Constitution Robinson is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn’t had a fair trial yet nor convicted of any crime. It is also irresponsible to state someone in his security detail or in the audience or a particular cameraman killed Kirk or that “Israel did it.” This is all conjecture. There may be a lot of circumstantial evidence to give someone a sneaking suspicion of what happened, but this remains an opinion and not actual proof.

In spite of the time I’ve spent looking into the murder, there is still much I don’t know. The judge in the case has issued a gag order on all 3,000 in attendance at the Utah Valley University TPUSA event, friends and colleagues. This is no doubt a desperate attempt to silence the conspiracy theories that have emerged from truth seekers motivated to do their own research because they do not trust the FBI. However, attempts to censor and shame voices questioning the official narrative (“You’re disrespecting the family!”) are hallmarks of a psychological operation.

Kirk’s murder is sadly the most significant political assassination of a globally known peace activist and opponent of US wars since John Lennon, and before him MLK, Malcolm X, RFK and JFK. Watching the powerful new documentary “RFK: Legacy” where Oliver Stone questions RFK Jr. as directed by executive producer Oliver’s son Sean Stone, was a vivid reminder of how RFK’s and JFK’s opposition to the Vietnam War and advocacy for peace placed a bull’s eye on both of them.

Charlie became a follower of Christ as a child. As a teenager, Kirk began attending rallies of the Tea Party, the grassroots political movement that drew intellectual and ideological inspiration from the 2008 presidential campaign of Ron Paul. One tenet of Paul’s platform was a non-interventionist US foreign policy, a position to which Kirk in the last two years of his life Kirk was making a complete shift. His transformation was based in part to his listening to the views of his millions of TPUSA followers. He was aware of  the despair his Generation Z supporters felt about their future prospects to get job or buy a house or get married and have a family and he had empathy about their dim future prospects. These 30 year-olds and younger did not support the US funding the weapons and bombs Israel uses to bomb Gaza and other countries nor did they want any wars.

Charlie was also learning due to his own research, spiritual changes within himself, and influence from his colleagues and friends Carlson, Owens, Megyn Kelly and Dave Smith. Kirk had an open mind and heart to change his views and to courageously speak truth to power and take corresponding action. Kirk was undergoing a spiritual conversion from Christian Zionist evangelism toward Catholicism, praying the rosary and attending mass. His timeline on X the last month of his life reveals pro-Catholic posts including his interview with a priest on the topic of demons. Matt Bracken reports Charlie was wearing a St. Michael’s pendant as a Catholic bishop prayed over Kirk’s body.

Charlie had already proven his effectiveness and success in challenging and attaining political power. He was the leader of the most powerful youth movement of our time in America with chapters around the world. At the memorial service whose grand production resembled a Trump rally or TPUSA event, RFK Jr. acknowledged it was Charlie who convinced him to endorse Trump for president which counted for about 2 ½ million votes for Trump. The DNC wasn’t too happy about that. RFK credited Kirk more than anyone else with leading the effort to restore free speech in America. RFK Jr. said he and Kirk had received many death threats but both believed seeing their children live in slavery and losing their Constitutional rights was worse than dying. RFK Jr. said Kirk succeeded JFK, RFK and MLK as one of the greatest political minds and activists in history. As noted by Ben Shapiro, who announced he was ready to pick up Charlie’s blood-stained microphone, under Charlie’s leadership TPUSA had become more powerful than the RNC in terms of fundraising, organization and strategy. That didn’t make the RNC very happy.

Before Kirk’s murder, I hadn’t paid much attention to him which I regret. I say that because I realize now his views were evolving over the past two years and that he was sincere and while he knew his speaking truth to power put his life in jeopardy, he took the risk and continued to speak out knowing his life would likely be taken. I was aware his radio show followed Bannon’s War Room on Real America’s Voice but never listened to it and I knew his TPUSA conducted conferences featuring high profile voices on the populist right such as Carlson and Bannon. I had been turned off by Kirk’s support of all the wars and was particularly disgusted by the way he treated a student who asked him a question about Israel’s 1967 unprovoked and deliberate attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 and wounded 174 American servicemen, an intended false flag the US government covered up. Using a tone of voice far from his typical conciliatory inflection, he angrily accused the student of spreading a conspiracy theory which would not be tolerated.

After Kirk was killed, I listened to many of his interviews, radio shows, and campus Q&A debates with students, and was impressed by his preaching the gospel, his willingness to debate college students, and his ability to give common sense advice to these young people. I was very surprised to learn Kirk had changed from an unquestioning devotee of Israel who visited the Holy Land many times to a critic who questioned if Israel stood down on October 7  on Patrick Bet David’s October 13, 2023 podcast. This may have been the first time Charlie publicly indicated he was veering away from his unquestioning support of Israel. He told PBT as a 30 year old millennial he was tired of no win Middle East wars started by “bloodthirsty neocons.” Kirk later insisted on the release of the Epstein files despite Trump’s dropping the issue after it had been a campaign promise; criticized bullying and bribing Jewish donors; opposed legislation to outlaw anti-Semitic speech; and named secular Jews as the force behind open US borders, Marxism and the anti-white agenda. Kirk went to the White House to convince President Trump to keep the US out of Israel’s long desired war with Iran but the Commander-in-Chief reportedly rebuffed him. Charlie opposed the war in Ukraine and started to question the IDF’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza. Two days before he was killed, he texted “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to abandon the pro-Israel cause.”

Many believe the assassination of Kirk was a professional hit by the Mossad (or to be nit-picky about it possibly a rogue group representing Zionist interests). Since even Steve Bannon now publicly acknowledges what he has undoubtedly known for many years, that Mossad controls the CIA, then by extension the Agency was also involved in planning and carrying out the public execution. The circumstantial evidence behind this theory is monumental and has been widely reported by many independent investigative journalists. Michael Yon, former Green Beret, war correspondent, military strategist and voracious reader, reasons Zionists had the motivation, means and resources to carry out the deadly deed. Charlie wouldn’t take the silver (reportedly $150 million from Netanyahu as well as a visit to Israel) so they gave him the lead. However, if a tranny lone gunman happened by coincidence to take out and silence the spiritual, political, and cultural leader of 30 year-old and younger Americans, how convenient for Bibi Netanyahu who was losing the support of Kirk and millions of his followers.

At the Turning the Tide: 9-11 Justice in 2025 conference in Washington, DC on the day after Kirk was killed, I approached a podcaster I recognized. We chatted and she told me she was a friend of Charlie’s. I shared my theory of what led to his assassination: he had wandered off the Zionist plantation and was therefore considered a liability rather than an asset to their interests. The podcaster responded with agreement, adding all of Charlie’s friends she knew reached the same conclusion. America Journal host Harrison Smith posted on X Charlie was afraid Israel would kill him if he continued to speak out against their interests. As discovered by YouTuber Baron Coleman using Google Trends and James Li using a Google tool, IP addresses in Israel and Washington, DC were searching for many places (like the hospital and university) and people (like the medical examiner and judges) related to the assassination and its aftermath months before the murder, indicating foreknowledge. And it is odd Charlie’s tent was placed on UVU courtyard landscaping that from an aerial view resembles a Hanukkah menorah.

As for widowed wife Erika, I am aware of the criticism and even cruel comments about her and her parents. All or some of it may be true, but I am not comfortable exploring any of this at this time. I will say I picked up on the fact that when she dramatically raised her head heavenward during her speech at the pyrotechnic laden memorial production proclaiming, “That young man….I forgive him!” she was telling the world she accepted the official narrative that Tyler Robinson was her husband’s murderer. In the days following the assassination I found it off putting to receive texts and emails with Erika’s name attached soliciting for money. Also, I found the video ostensibly of Charlie in his casket with Erika’s prominently ringed fingers touching his rubber looking hands and her burying her head into his chest, bizarre. If you expect anyone to believe this, you might as well show his face. And I was puzzled how she could smile backstage with Trump at the memorial extravaganza and seamlessly accept the role as TPUSA CEO and co-host of Charlie’s radio show. I realize people grieve in different ways, but if my husband had been brutally murdered in the presence of me, my children, on camera and in front of the entire world, I would be a basket case for at least six months and would spend my time nurturing our children.

As for the many theories about how and who killed Charlie, I will dismiss the most amusing one contending a hologram was used. A hologram can look realistic if you are facing the stage, but the shocking sight of blood gushing out of Charlie’s neck was observed by eyewitnesses and captured on video from both sides of the tent. And CGI works on video but not in person. Admittedly, the outpouring of blood looked very much like the way blood reacts when a squib is used, and the small pool of blood on the corner of the table on which Charlie’s chair was placed to elevate him, and the absence of blood from the tent to the SUV lend itself to the use of a squib. Nevertheless, I reject the nonsensical theory that Charlie used a squib, he isn’t dead, he escaped via a trap door, and he’s living in Valhalla under a witness protection program. That one gave me a much needed laugh while immersing myself into this dire topic. Another theory that induced a chuckle was from a YouTuber whose 15-part series plot speculated how Charlie planned to fake his death to take the heat off Trump’s refusal to release the Epstein files but Mossad double-crossed him and deployed their own team who really did do him in.

TPUSA’s finances have been called into question and possible fraud has been suspected. Charlie sent a memo informing his executive team he was going to conduct a DOGE-like audit of the non-profit’s financials. Investment advisor Charles Ortel, an admirer of Kirk’s who has exposed the Clinton Foundation’s corruption, uncovered suspicious endowments to TPUSA and disturbing details of affiliated companies with multiple offices in locations such as shopping malls. Ortel said he could not find documentation reconciling how entities share expenses and revenues and that board members handling finances do not appear to be very financially astute. TPUSA has not questioned any aspect of the FBI investigation and is awaiting developments from the trial set to start on October 30. Meanwhile, it’s business as usual as TPUSA executives continue to host episodes of The Charlie Kirk Show and conduct campus visits.

There are many unanswered questions. A few: Why was there no ambulance at UVU? Was there an autopsy? There is a claim one was leaked but no report has officially been released. Why was Charlie taken to a hospital farther away than the one that was closer? Why is there no footage from the hospital? How was his body in the coffin less than 40 hours after he was killed? Was he cremated? Where is his body buried?

The good news is that the shocking and traumatizing murder of Kirk, the recognition of his living his Christian faith and all he accomplished are bringing many around the world to Jesus. Charlie was bringing souls to Christ and trying to save Western Civilization and “the lost boys of the West” as one speaker at the memorial service phrased it. Charlie Kirk deserves nothing less than the revealing of the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to who, how and why his life was taken from him.

The post Unraveling the Mystery of Who Assassinated Charlie Kirk and Why appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump is more than a bad president; he is a very bad man (to use Trump’s lingo). America has had several presidents with loose morals, but we’ve never had one (well, except for perhaps Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson) who had NO morals.

It’s really difficult to realize, much less articulate, just how much toxic damage Trump has wrought in the hearts and minds of the people on the political and religious right. Of course, they themselves are unable to recognize it, but devotion and loyalty to Trump have cost them their moral conscience, their mental capacity to reason and, yes, the forfeiture of their humanity. The unconscionable conduct, egregious crimes and attacks on civility committed by Trump on a daily (even hourly) basis that conservatives are willing to excuse and even laud stagger the imagination.

This is especially true for people calling themselves Christians.

Donald Trump has made a mockery of the office of president. He treats the Oval Office like a lavatory. His brain registers zero respect or reverence for the office. He degrades and humiliates the office day in and day out. There has never been a man in the White House who publicly profanes the name of God and insults the conscience of America’s polite society with more vulgarity and profanity than Donald J. Trump (and those around him).

If a Democrat president behaved this way, Christians would howl their displeasure. But when Trump does it, they sit passive and compliant—even turn around and try to tell us how great Christians the Trumps are. To hear them talk, Abraham, Moses, Peter and Paul are carnal degenerates compared to the spirituality of the Trumps.

Evangelicals point to the two attempted assassinations on Donald Trump as proof that Trump has some sort of divine anointing. They have forgotten that Adolf Hitler had at least forty assassination attempts on his life.

When Trump survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, Trump said that God saved his life. Yes, indeed. God did just that. God has saved the life of each person reading this column—probably more than once. Every breath, every heartbeat is a gift of God.

But now, in typical emperor-speak, the Trumps have changed “God saved Trump” to “Trump saved God.”

Eric Trump on Tuesday claimed that President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement are “saving God” during an interview with conservative political commentator Benny Johnson.

“We’re saving Christianity. We’re saving God,” he told Johnson. “We’re saving the family unit. We’re saving this nation.”

(Source)

Where are you, Pastor Robert Jeffress? Where are you, Rev. Franklin Graham?

Eric Trump just boldly, brazenly and matter-of-factly publicly blasphemed Almighty God in a way never heard before by a member of an American first family, and evangelical preachers sit mute and dumb.

Can one imagine the outcry had Joe Biden’s son Hunter publicly said such a thing? I guess blasphemy is only a sin if Democrats commit it.

But it is Trump’s slavish pandering to Israel that really stinks to the heavens. Disgusting and nauseating do not begin to describe Trump’s sheer, supine subjection to the Jewish billionaire class.

In his speech before the Israeli Knesset, Donald Trump made a fool out of the people of the United States. He crawled before Benjamin Netanyahu and Miriam Adelson like a whipped little puppy dog. It was humiliating! It was horrible!

“I’m gonna get her {Miriam Adelson, Zionist billionaire and Mossad asset} in trouble with this one, but I actually asked her once, ‘So, Miriam, I know you love Israel. What do you love more? Israel. The United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That might mean Israel,” the president said.

Miriam’s late husband, Sheldon Adelson, was also a major contributor to Trump’s previous presidential campaigns, and Trump credited the couple for pro-Israel moves he made in his first administration, including recognizing the Israeli annexation of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

“Miriam and Sheldon would come into the office, they’d call me. I think they had more trips to the White House than anybody else I could think of. Look at her sitting there so innocently, she got $60 billion in the bank … and she loves Israel,” Trump said in his Knesset address, which Miriam attended.

“Her husband was a very aggressive man, but I loved him, very supportive of me. And he’d call up, ‘Can I come over and see you?’ I say, ‘Sheldon, I’m the president of the United States, it doesn’t work that way.’ He’d come in and do good, though. But they were very responsible for so much, including getting me thinking about Golan Heights,” Trump added.

Lest anyone forget, Trump in 2024 openly ran on handing our country over to Miriam Adelson and the Israel Lobby.

“You’re going to end up winning because you’re going to have the president, okay?” he told Adelson at an event for wealthy Jewish donors in August 2024.

(Source)

As I said in my message last Sunday entitled It Is Christian Zionists Who Will Be Left Behind:

If you saw Trump’s speech before the Israeli Knesset last week, you saw what a pandering, sycophantic lackey for Israel Donald Trump really is.

He confessed to the world that he is owned by Miriam Adelson, the Mossad and Netanyahu.

He confessed to the world that the Adelsons bribed him in his first term to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

He confessed to the world that the Adelsons bribed him to “give” the Golan Heights to Israel.

He confessed to the world that Sheldon Adelson had unfettered access to the Oval Office.

He confessed to the world that his largest financial benefactor, Miriam Adelson, is more loyal to Israel than she is to the United States.

He confessed to the world that Netanyahu is guilty of accepting bribes.

And he further confessed to the world that he, Donald Trump, regards bribery as “no big deal,” because, of course, HE has been bribed by Israel all of his life.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear USMC Major and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter say in an interview that even with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Israel lobby has at its disposal with which to bribe America’s politicians, it would not be enough to succeed the way it does without the popular support of America’s evangelical Christian Zionists.

Hooray, Scott! I’ve been saying that for years.

Christian Zionism is the glue that holds the global Zionist Ponzi scheme together. And the one man that is most responsible for this gigantic global deception is Cyrus Scofield, author of the pro-Zionist notes in the Scofield Reference Bible.

I encourage everyone to read the single most exhaustive and thoroughly researched biography of C. I. Scofield entitled The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph Canfield.

I’m proud to say that we are a distributor of this blockbuster book that unveils the truth about the real C. I. Scofield. Scofield was to religion what P. T. Barnum was to entertainment.

A Zionist-owned American presidency and U.S. Congress could have never happened without Scofield. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Palestine by the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Zionist Israel could have never happened without Scofield.

The genocide in Gaza, Israel-pandering politicians and blind, indifferent “Christians” are the legacy of C. I. Scofield. Read the book, and you will understand.

Now, on the home front, what is Trump doing? He’s declaring political war on the two best friends that conservatives and constitutionalists have in Congress: Congressman Thomas Massie and Senator Rand Paul.

This subject was recently discussed on Ron Paul’s Liberty Report podcast with Ron and co-host Daniel McAdams.

McAdams: This, honestly, Dr. Paul, this is not even a junior high-level rant on the part of President Trump. And it’s honestly hard to read this and believe (and I had to double check it) to believe that this person who wrote this is the president of the United States of America. Now, I’ll read it for you because it happens to be important, I think.  He said,

Donald Trump Truth Social Channel: Whatever happened to “Senator” Rand Paul? He was never great, but he went really BAD! I got him elected TWICE (in the great state of Kentucky!), but he just never votes positively for the Republican Party. He’s a nasty liddle’ guy [misspelled], much like “Congressman” Thomas Massie, aka Rand Paul Jr., also of Kentucky (which I won three times in massive landslides!), a sick Wacko, who refuses to vote for our great Republican Party, MAGA, or America First. It’s really weird!!!

There are a lot of things wrong with this, the first of which being that it’s absolutely untrue in every way. He did not get Senator Paul elected twice. In 2010, he had nothing to do with the first senatorial, as you know very well, Dr. Paul, because you are actually the one involved. You were the one involved. In 2010, he did nothing. You were involved in that. So, Trump had nothing to do with that. And in 2016, Trump was running for president. They were running against each other for president. Trump certainly didn’t help him then. So, an absolute bold-faced lie. Maybe he’s forgotten that he had nothing to do with Senator Paul’s election.

And, by the way, it should be pointed out through all of these constant attacks on Senator Paul and Massie, but certainly Senator Paul: When the chips were down, and President Trump was facing this Russiagate claims, a pack of lies, there was one person who steadfastly stood by President Trump, and that is Senator Rand Paul. And we remember this. He defended him against these charges that he’s simply Putin’s puppet. And he not only defended them, but Senator Paul defended President Trump even to the detriment of Senator Paul’s own reputation, because they said, “Oh, you must be Putin’s puppet too.” So, he basically took the body blows for President Trump when the chips were down. And this is how President Trump repays people. I think it’s disgusting.

The thing about the attack on Senator Paul and Congressman Massie is that there’s a punchline to this horrible, horrible, off-color joke. And that is, right when President Trump is attacking these two gentlemen, what does he decide to do? Well, he decides to have his first fundraiser for another candidate of the election cycle. And who does he support? So, “Rand and Massie are RINOs; they’re not real Republicans.”

Go to that Politico article. There we go. He’s going to go on stage for Lindsey Graham.

Politico Article: Trump’s first in-person fundraiser of the 2026 cycle will be for Lindsey Graham

His first in-person appearance of the 2026 midterm campaign cycle at a fundraiser next month to support the reelection bid of Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Trump, who has largely eschewed domestic travel this year, is scheduled to join the South Carolina Republican for a golf tournament in November, according to a person familiar with this.

So, Senator Paul, Congressman Massie are anathema, but Lindsey Graham is the one who he believes is the America first, MAGA. It’s unbelievable.

McAdams continues:

Well, as bad as it is attacking these two fine gentlemen and going to bat for Lindsey Graham, hold your breath, Dr. Paul, it gets even worse.

Now, you mentioned Trump was desperately trying to find a Republican to run against Massie in the primaries. He even got a bunch of out-of-state money, a couple million bucks, out-of-state money to put someone up against Massie, but they couldn’t find anyone. Well, it looks like he’s desperately trying to find one.

Tyler Durden Article: “Is This MAGA? Trump Wants Lindsey Graham Donor To Challenge ‘RINO’ Massie”

The guy’s name is Ed Gallrein, and Trump is desperately trying to get him to run against Massie. Go to the next clip.

Here’s what Trump wrote on Friday night.

Same Tyler Durden Article: Third Rate Congressman Thomas Massie, a Weak and Pathetic RINO from the Great Commonwealth of Kentucky, a place I love, and won big SIX TIMES [only six?], must be thrown out of office ASAP!

I hope Ed gets into the race against Massie. Unlike ‘lightweight’ Massie, a totally ineffective loser who has failed so badly, CAPTAIN ED GALLREIGN IS A WINNER WHO WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. Should he decide to challenge Massie, Captain Ed Gallrein has my complete and total endorsement. RUN, ED, RUN.

I mean, Dr. Paul, reading this, does that look like it’s written by the president of the United States of America? It’s so weird.

It’s more than weird, Daniel; it’s evil.

Lindsey Graham is the biggest Neocon warmonger in the U.S. Congress. The blood of innocents drips from his hands and oozes from the pores of his skin.

You professing peace lovers in the GOP take note: Donald Trump is doing everything he can to re-elect your biggest enemy in Congress and to defeat your best friends in Congress. And you still give Donald Trump unyielding, total support.

What is wrong with you? You’ve allowed Trump to sully your soul. That’s what’s wrong with you.

Trump is more than a bad president; he is a very bad man. And people who blindly follow him are falling into the ditch of disaster into which he is leading them.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Trump’s God Complex, Slavish Pandering to Israel and War Against Thomas Massie and Rand Paul appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Shroud of Turin has fascinated believers and skeptics for centuries. This linen cloth bears the faint image of a man who appears to have been crucified – complete with wounds that match the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ’s death. For some, it is the most sacred object in Christianity as it marks the exact moment that Jesus was resurrected. Others have insisted that the shroud is a medieval forgery. Until recently, there was no definitive evidence either way. That changed this year.

First a bit of history. In 1988, three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich, and Arizona used radiocarbon dating on a small strip from one corner of the shroud, and they concluded that the cloth dated to between AD 1260 and 1390. Western media immediately pounced on the story, eager to declare the Shroud a forgery.

But the science has not turned out to be quite as solid as they hoped, and recent work by Italian physicist Professor Liberato De Caro has thrown that medieval date out the window.

Cracks in the Carbon-14

The first problem with the 1988 test was its sample location: all the material came from a single corner, right next to a seam. This area had been handled frequently over the centuries and appeared to have been repaired with different threads after fire damage in 1532.

In 2013, statisticians Marco Riani and Anthony Atkinson re-examined the original Carbon-14 data and found that the dates varied along the strip in a way that suggested the dating of the corner was not a reliable estimate for the date of the entire cloth. In 2019, researcher Tristan Casabianca from the University of Hamburg obtained the raw lab data and confirmed these inconsistencies.

Historian, Jean-Christian Petitfils, who has studied the Shroud for more than 40 years, discussed the post-1988 findings in his new book, ‘The Shroud of Turin: The Definitive Investigation’. “Traces of fungus and calcium carbonate were found. The sample area corresponded to a sewn area: modern threads were inserted in the 16th century in order to repair this area that had been worn away.” He concluded “ The Carbon-14 experiment of 1988 is null and void.”

Trust The Science

Since Carbon-14 dating could not be relied upon to provide a valid date for the Shroud, Professor De Caro approached the dating problem differently. Instead of measuring radioactive carbon, he used wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS), which examines the microscopic structure of cellulose in linen fibers.

Over time, the crystalline regions in cellulose break down in predictable ways. By measuring this structural change and comparing it to samples of known age, WAXS can estimate very accurately how long the fibers have been aging since they were woven. Unlike carbon dating, this method is unaffected by surface contamination because it probes the fiber’s internal structure itself.

De Caro Findings

In 2022, De Caro’s team analyzed a fiber from the Shroud and compared it to linen samples from various periods, including cloth from Masada in Israel dated to the first century AD. When the fiber was analyzed by a powerful X-ray machine, the scientists were astounded at the result that emerged. The Shroud did not originate, as has long been thought, in the 13th century, but from the 1st century AD.

In age, it matched a similar shred of linen that came from the siege of Masada in 73 AD, when a band of Jews who had sought sanctuary on a sheer-sided outcrop in the desert were besieged by the Roman army. Rather than wait to be killed by the advancing legions, they took their own lives en masse. The scrap of cloth from Masada has been dated to 55–74 AD.

“There was a sense of joy, of shock,” says Prof De Caro. “Why? Because we had verified that it could be authentic. We know for sure that the sample from the fortress of Masada is 2,000 years old. The results from the Turin Shroud sample were almost identical. The direct comparison verified that the Turin Shroud sample is 2,000 years old.”

The Image That Science Can’t Explain

Even before De Caro’s work, the Shroud’s image posed a puzzle. In 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) studied it directly and concluded:

• The image is not paint, dye, or scorch.
• Discoloration is confined to the outermost fibrils of each thread—less than a thousandth of a millimeter deep.
• The image lies above the bloodstains, meaning the blood was deposited before the image.
• The light-dark shading in the image encodes precise 3D information, unlike any known art technique.

Blood chemistry tests determined that the stains were Type AB human blood with hemoglobin breakdown products and high bilirubin which would be expected from an individual who had undergone severe trauma.

Above??

One of these findings is worth further comment. The researchers in 1978 determined that the image on the Shroud was formed above the blood stains, meaning that the image was formed ‘after’ the blood stains on the cloth had been deposited. This means that, for the Shroud to be considered a forgery, the forger would have had to apply human blood in over 700 locations across the Shroud first, and then later somehow fit the image of the body to the cloth in perfect correspondence with the of blood stains already applied, some of which were smaller than a millimeter in size.

Light on the Subject

So what did form the image of the body on the cloth? The hypothesis that best matches the findings of the 1978 study is that that the image was formed by a brief burst of high-energy radiation from the body onto the cloth. This would account for the fact that the image is only on the top surface of the fibers, not extending further into the cloth as paints or stains would have done. Physicist Paulo Delazo at ENEA Laboratories outside Rome spent five years attempting to duplicate the chemical changes seen in the Shroud on linen fibers using radiation. He concluded that a radiation burst of 34 billion watts of energy at 1/40 of a billionth of a second could create an image on linen similar to the one seen on the Shroud.

Other researchers noted that such a radiation event would also have altered the cloth’s carbon isotope ratio, further skewing the 1988 dating results.

Threads of Time

Additional evidence further points to the authenticity of the shroud. The Shroud’s weave is a fine herringbone twill unknown in Medieval Europe. Textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who oversaw a 2002 conservation project, noted that the seam along one edge is similar to first-century Jewish burial cloths from Masada near the Dead Sea in Israel. In addition, recent image-enhancement technology revealed that there were coins placed over the eyes of the subject on the Shroud that were identified as first-century Roman lepton coins, minted under Pontius Pilate between 29 and 32 AD.

An Emerging Picture

Put the evidence together and a consistent story begins to emerge:

• Dating – WAXS points to the first century; the 1988 carbon date is undermined by sampling flaws.
• Image formation – The properties of the image fit a high-energy event that cannot be duplicated, even with today’s technology.
• Textile details – Weave and seam construction match first-century examples.
• Pollen deposits – Pollen species from the Levant area of Israel that are not present in any part of Europe.

The only explanation that matches all the scientific and historical evidence is that the Shroud is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and that the image documents the very moment of his resurrection.

Not an Unfamiliar Concept

While the notion of Jesus’ body lighting up with high energy radiation may seem difficult for many to believe in this modern age, it is actually a familiar concept to Christians. A similar event is recorded in the Gospels:

Matthew 17:

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.

2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified.

7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.”

8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

The Meaning of The Shroud

The word ‘miracle’ is tossed about so commonly today that it has pretty much lost any meaning. To many, the Mets winning the 1969 World Series is still considered the most astonishing miracle of our time.

But the word does have a meaning. It is an event that is impossible according to the laws of physics but nevertheless does happen. Can any other artifact in history claim such a convincing right to this word after generations of scientific study and scrutiny?

Why Then?

During the ministry of Jesus his focus was on communicating the word of God to the Jews to whom Jesus had been sent. In order to demonstrate his credibility as a messenger of God, Jesus performed many miracles in front of the people. The miracles established his authority to speak for God as well as the validity of his message to the Jewish people. This is clearly expressed in John 14:11:

“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”

Toward the end of his three year ministry, Jesus expressed astonishment that the Jews of his day did not respond to his teachings.

But a more fundamental question needs to be asked. Why was Jesus sent to the Jews at that particular time in their history? Stand back a bit, view the larger context, and the story becomes clear.

Following the crucifixion of Jesus (ca. 33 AD), Jews in Judea lived under increasingly harsh Roman rule. Tensions escalated as Roman authorities suppressed Jewish religious practices and imposed heavy taxes, while Jewish resistance movements grew. This culminated in the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70 AD), during which Jerusalem was besieged and the Second Temple destroyed in 70 AD. A later revolt, the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 AD), was crushed with extraordinary brutality by Emperor Hadrian’s forces. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, survivors enslaved, and Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina to erase its Jewish identity. Jews were banned from entering Jerusalem except on one day a year (Tisha B’Av), marking the effective expulsion and dispersion (Diaspora) of the Jewish people from their homeland.

When viewed within the context of history it becomes clear why God sent his son to the Jewish people at that moment in time. It was an attempt to save them from the horrific tragedy that God knew awaited them at the hands of the Romans. God saw what was in the future for the Jewish people and he sent his son to guide them toward a path that would have spared them from that tragic fate.

Would the Jews have been spared the wrath of the Romans had they accepted the message of Jesus? An entire book could be written (and probably has been) on that subject alone. But a central pillar of the teachings of Jesus was clearly his instruction that they should avoid confrontation, aggression, hatred, revenge, and violence, and express a willingness to pursue peace and forgiveness:

“If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them”. Luke 6:29.

If the Jews had responded to Roman aggression as Jesus taught, would they not have escaped the genocide that the Romans eventually inflicted on them?

This message is perfectly encapsulated in a well known passage in the Gospels:

But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. ‘Which of the two do you want me to release to you?’ asked the governor. ‘Barabbas,’ they answered. ‘What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ Pilate asked. They all shouted, ‘Crucify him.’ Matthew 27:20–22

Who was Barabbas? Why was he a prisoner of Pilate? Barabbas was an insurrectionist fighting Roman rule. As such, there can be little doubt that when he was released by Pilate he went right back to his battle against the Romans. Barabbas would have certainly taken part in the Jewish resistance during the 33 years between the crucifixion and the first Jewish-Roman war of 66 AD.

Would there have been a Jewish-Roman war had Barabbas not been released? How large a part did Barabbas play in the Jewish resistance that led up to that war? No one will ever know. That information is lost to history.

So, what does any of this have to do with the Shroud of Turin?

Back up and examine the story from a broader perspective. God sent his Son to the Jewish people in an effort to save them from the catastrophe that awaited them. Since that time, no one has performed a single miracle on earth, at least not one that has been scientifically scrutinized and proven to be real. And yet today, this year, Jesus has given the world one more miracle in the form of scientific proof that the Shroud and the image on it are authentic.

Why now?

God is giving us this miracle today for the same reason he gave the Jews the miracles performed by Jesus long ago. Just as in the time of Jesus, the world today sits at the precipice of an apocalyptic catastrophe, worse than anything humanity has ever endured in its history. Nuclear war could break out at any moment, and if it did it would mean the end of the human race itself.

The message is clear for those who are willing to understand it. In a very real sense, God sent his son to us a second time. The message to us is, ‘Here, I gave you a miracle that you may believe. Now hear my words and follow them’.

The question is, will we listen this time?

This article was originally published on Trust The Science.

The post The Message of the Shroud appeared first on LewRockwell.

To understand how the Western world lost its confidence—how we became a civilization weakened and confused about morality, gender, and even reality itself—we must look back to one of modernity’s most influential and corrosive figures: Sigmund Freud.

Freud’s psychological doctrines reshaped how the West views desire, virtue, and identity. His ideas helped lay the groundwork for the sexual revolution and the new gender politics that now dominate our schools, media, and institutions. The result is a culture hyper-sexualized, guilt-ridden, and detached from the moral roots that once sustained Western civilization.

Freud: Prophet of Desire

Born in 1856, Freud presented himself as a scientist but operated more like a prophet of the flesh. His theories were built on personal obsession, not empirical truth. He admitted harboring sexual feelings toward his own mother and from that created his notorious Oedipus complex, claiming, without any proof whatsoever, that all men secretly desire their mothers and resent their fathers. It was an extraordinary act of projection—and a case study in how one man’s neuroses became a cultural epidemic.

For thousands of years, Western civilization taught that human beings are moral creatures capable of self-control, that desire must be disciplined by reason, and that virtue—not pleasure—is the mark of maturity. Freud turned this on its head. He recast repression as sickness and indulgence as health. Lust was no longer a temptation to be resisted but a psychological need to be fulfilled.

As critic Frederick Crews put it, “The entire system of classical psycho-analytical thought rests on nothing more substantial than Freud’s word that it is true.” Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar went further, calling psychoanalysis “a stupendous intellectual confidence trick.”

The Fraud Behind the Father of Psychology

Freud’s defenders like to portray him as a brave explorer of the mind. In reality, he was a deeply troubled man. Historians have documented his cocaine addiction, his self-diagnosed neuroses, and his ruthless treatment of patients—whom he reportedly called “rabble… only good for money-earning.”

His own granddaughter, Dr. Sophie Freud, dismissed his theories as “narcissistic indulgence.” Psychiatrist Edward R. Pinckney called psychoanalysis “the biggest hoax ever played on humanity.” Modern scholars have shown that his central claims were invented interpretations, never verified by real evidence.

Even Freud’s contemporaries noticed his hostility toward Christianity. Stanley Rothman described psychoanalysis as a secular substitute for religion—a way to dethrone the moral authority of faith and replace it with psychological relativism.

The Moral Inversion of the West

Freud’s legacy was not confined to the consulting room. His ideas filtered into education, the arts, and eventually politics. Behaviors once seen as moral choices—infidelity, promiscuity, homosexuality—were reclassified as psychological conditions or mere “lifestyle preferences.” As Dr. Tim LaHaye observed, Freud helped shift the West from moral judgment to moral neutrality.

This shift set the stage for the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the gender revolution of our own time. Once you accept Freud’s premise—that sexual expression is central to human health—it becomes easy to claim that any restraint is repressive and any boundary oppressive. Today’s ideology of gender fluidity is simply Freud’s obsession with sexuality carried to its logical extreme: the belief that identity itself is defined by desire.

Where original Christianity — and indeed many ancient cultures world-wide — taught mastery of the self through devotion to the divine, Freudianism taught that freedom means surrender to every indulgence and desire, no matter how misguided. In that reversal, the moral backbone of Western civilization began to dissolve.

The Cult of Liberation and the Cost of Chaos

Freud’s followers promoted the idea that sexual release was essential for health, a myth that fueled modern hedonism. Yet history and science suggest the opposite.

“Freud’s followers claimed sexual release was essential for health — a myth that fueled modern hedonism, though history and science suggest the opposite.”

Great thinkers—from Pythagoras and Plato to Newton and Tesla—understood that discipline and celibacy could heighten creativity and focus. Traditional faiths taught that chastity refines the spirit and strengthens the intellect.

Ancient scripture warns that indulgence weakens the soul: “Flee fornication… he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Saint Augustine wrote that those who misuse sex “use it bestially.” The great saints and sages across cultures—from Saint Francis to Srila Prabhupada—saw mastery of desire as the highest test of wisdom.

Freud dismissed all this as repression. Yet look around: the societies that embraced his creed of liberation now suffer record levels of loneliness, addiction, broken families, and mental illness. What Freud dismissed as “repression” was in truth restraint — the self-control and respect for God’s laws that form the very foundation of a just and enduring civilization.

From Psychoanalysis to Gender Ideology

Freud’s intellectual descendants extended his logic. If all desire is natural, then all distinctions—male and female, sacred and profane—must be artificial. The modern gender theorist simply continues Freud’s rebellion against moral order.

Today’s “gender-affirming” movement takes his premise to its final absurdity: the belief that biology can be rewritten by feelings. Where Freud dethroned morality, gender ideology dethrones reality itself.

In the post-Freudian West, traditional masculinity has been recast as a social disease, leaving countless men—especially straight white men—alienated in the very civilizations their fathers built. Where once patriarchy meant duty, protection, and order, today it is smeared as oppression—yet the absence of that structure has produced a generation adrift, confused about manhood, family, and purpose.

Both deny the existence of a higher order to which human beings are accountable. Both reduce the soul to the libido. And both have produced generations unmoored from truth, tradition, and meaning.

A Civilization of Self-Destruction

What began as speculative therapy has become a cultural operating system. The Freudian worldview teaches that the highest good is pleasure and the highest sin is guilt. Yet guilt is the conscience’s alarm bell—the signal that our actions matter. A society that silences that bell soon loses the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

Freud’s doctrines helped convert Western man from a moral agent into a psychological patient—an early victory for the managerial state and its army of ‘experts’ who claim to heal the soul while quietly governing it. The confessional was replaced by the therapist’s couch; repentance by self-expression. The result is what the philosopher Srila Prabhupada called “pig civilization”—a culture that mistakes appetite for happiness.

The consequences are visible everywhere: collapsing birth rates, epidemic loneliness, a generation medicated for despair. A civilization that worships desire cannot sustain duty; a nation that mocks virtue cannot defend freedom.

Recovering the Higher Path

In today’s Western cities, ideology hangs thick in the air — feminism elevated to dogma, masculinity treated as a crime, consumerism replacing character, and state-engineered mass immigration introducing cultures often at odds with the very values that built the West.

Everywhere the marks of decay are visible: families fragmented, men feminized, and citizens numbed by propaganda that preaches equality but breeds resentment and confusion. The farther a man steps from that chaos — into self-discipline, simplicity, and the awareness that sooner or later he must answer to God — the clearer he sees that strength and sanity endure only where tradition still holds.

To rebuild what was lost, the West must recover its ancient understanding of human nature—that we are not slaves to instinct but stewards of the soul. The answer is not repression but redirection: channeling passion into purpose and creativity.

The same energies that destroy can elevate. As Auguste Comte wrote, “To control the sexual impulse efficiently has always been and ever will be regarded as the highest test of human wisdom.” The men and women who built the West—saints, scholars, soldiers, and parents—understood this. They believed in duty before desire, honor before indulgence, and truth before comfort.

Freud promised liberation and the new gender politics promised compassion — both delivered confusion and bondage. The cure for both is the same timeless prescription: self-discipline, moral courage, and an understanding that we are all children of God, called to follow His instructions given for our good.

The West can recover its strength only when free men and women reject the false gospel of Freud and rebuild their lives on the virtues that once made civilization possible—faith, family, chastity, truth, and reverence for God above the state.

The post How Freudian Psychology and Gender Politics Weakened the West 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. The Trigger: The Lie That Changed the World
2. CRASH COURSE: 9-11 INSIDE JOB: Debunking the Official Story in Just 1 Hour 
3. The Bible, Simplified: Learn the Story, Live the Story 
4. The Big Book of Herbal Medicine: 300 Natural Remedies for Health and Wellness 
   
5. Live in Grace, Walk in Love: A 365-Day Journey 
   
6. DMSO Healing Guide: Discover Dosages, Recipes, and Essential Precautions for Using Dimethyl Sulfoxide to Treat Pain, Inflammation, Chronic Conditions, and Enhance Skin Care Naturally.
7. Peak Human: What We Can Learn From History’s Greatest Civilizations
8. Love Does: Discover a Secretly Incredible Life in an Ordinary World
9. The One-Minute Cure: The Secret to Healing Virtually All Diseases – 2nd Edition Perfect
   
10. Forgiving What You Can’t Forget: Discover How to Move On, Make Peace with Painful Memories, and Create a Life Thats Beautiful Again
11. Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe and Effective is Lying
12. Health Myths Exposed: Learn How to Avoid Deadly Health Myths-Add 10 Years to Your Life
    
13. The Everything Bible: The Ultimate Collection of Bible Facts, Timelines, Maps, and Charts
14. The Haves and Have-Yachts: Dispatches on the Ultrarich
    
15. Treat Your Own Ankle & Achilles Tendon 
    
16. Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke (An Economic Commentary on the Bible)
17. History of Fascism, 1914–1945
18. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
19. Holistic Dental Care: The Complete Guide to Healthy Teeth and Gums
    
20. Anti-Inflammatory Eating for a Happy, Healthy Brain: 75 Recipes for Alleviating Depression, Anxiety, and Memory Loss (Anti-inflammatory Michelle Babb)

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

Born: June 21, 1788

Residence: Washington, D.C. and elsewhere

Education: Niccolo Machiavelli, Carl von Clausewitz, John Maynard Keynes

Experience (partial list): Revolutionary War, Northwest Indian War, First Barbary War, War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Somalia Intervention, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, ISIS War, Global “War on Terror,” Ukraine Proxy War on Russia.

***

Interviewer: I must admit, in all my experience being a regular person, I’ve never interviewed a state before, or anything close to a state, unless you count the Kiwanis Club.

US State: Yeah, yeah.  Let’s get on with it.  I’ve got a lot on my plate.

Interviewer: So, why do you wish to become a global hegemon?

US State: Didn’t you go to school?  It’s my Manifest Destiny.  It was ordained by Providence from day one.

Interviewer: The original doctrine covered only the two oceans, from the Atlantic to the Pacific  You’re talking about everything.

US State: Well, consider yourself updated.  It’s what progress is all about.  We knocked out the Mexicans, relocated the aboriginals and let human nature take its course.  We spread democracy then and we’re spreading it now.

Interviewer: Is that why we have a nearly trillion dollar military budget?  To spread democracy?

US State: Of course.  I’m not talking about a pure democracy.  That’s idiotic.  I think it was Madison who wrote that pure democracies are

spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.

As you know — I hope — he and the rest of the convention developed a constitutional republic.  Popular sovereignty — you guys elect leaders who represent your interests.  And they carry out your will.

Interviewer: Right.  So the word “democracy” is just shorthand for what you’re spreading.  Damn the costs, full-speed ahead.

US State: And you guys love it.  “Democracy” sounds so anti-authoritarian.  By definition you can’t have tyrants in a democracy, and that’s what the Revolution was about, right?  You called the king a “royal brute.” When people talk about a constitutional republic they get confused.  We never want a confused electorate.  “Democracy” means freedom.  Keep it simple.

Interviewer: A lot of people, myself included, think the words of John Quincy Adams, delivered on the Fourth of July in 1821 to the House of Representatives, should define our foreign relations, especially today.  It’s a long speech, some 8500 words, but here is the relevant passage:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence, has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

US State: Seriously, what bearing to reality do those words have?  Today, none.  Yesterday, none.  It has a feel-good message but that’s not the world we live in.  It never has been.  Political life is about power.  Period.  All the other stuff is for the masses.  I guess Quincy was a good Secretary of State but when he became president he was kicked out after one term, like his father, and the country made way for Andrew Jackson, the bank killer.

Quincy was a nationalist and very much at home with a national bank.  During his presidency he got along well with Nicholas Biddle, the bank’s president.  Jackson vetoed the bank bill in 1832.  In that sense Jackson was the freedom fighter, not Quincy.  In 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland upheld Congress’s power to establish a national bank and thereby regulate the value of the nation’s currency.  Chief Justice Marshall said, “there is no phrase in the [Constitution] which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers.”  There you have it.  Quincy didn’t blink.  He approved the bank.  His essay was hypocrisy.

Interviewer: Regulating the dollar is what the Fed has done since 1914, and it’s lost 98% of its value.  In 1914 a good annual income was $10,000.  Today it would mean $300,000.  How many people make that much?  But a dollar in 1800 still had roughly the same value in 1900.  Quincy was wrong about a national bank, but his thoughts on foreign entanglements are valid for all time.

US State:  Not in this world. That’s why we have the Fed, to fund our foreign affairs.  Without it we would be at the mercy of nuclear-powered Russians or Chinese, and our allies would sink into oblivion.

Interviewer: The world is at the mercy of any country with a nuclear arsenal.  That’s insane.

US State:  Our enemies will blink first, we guarantee it.  And people learned to get along with inflation long ago.  Wait and see.  We might have to spill a little blood, but we’ll reach a point where the world will answer to us.  Safety and liberty — what good is one without the other?

Well?

Interviewer: Well, if it were up to me you wouldn’t get the job.

US state: Which is why we’ve taken it out of your hands.

The post Interview With the US State appeared first on LewRockwell.

One wonders how much longer Putin and Lavrov will take it or even if they comprehend the situation.  

For four years Putin and Lavrov have demonstrated enormous interest in ending the conflict by resolving the basic cause. 

The West has never bothered to understand that the basis of the conflict is Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy and NATO and US missile bases on Russia’s borders in Poland and Romania. The Kremlin has been reluctant to see this and provocations, such as the conflict in Ukraine created by US Zionist Neoconservatives, as a declaration of war on Russia.

The Kremlin mistakenly has relied on the West coming to its senses and realizing that profits from economic interaction are preferable to war, especially nuclear war.  This reliance on common sense by the Kremlin has proven to be wrong. Putin made a very bad bet.

John Helmer has pointed out that no Western government wants an end to the conflict because of the large rake-off in commissions from weapons sales.  

Gilbert Doctorow and myself have pointed out that the war under Putin’s direction has widened far beyond Putin’s uninforced “red lines” and now consists of drone attacks deep inside Russia.  These attacks are causing GPS disruptions, airline delays, internet inaccessibility and delays in payments processing, as well as some Russian civilian deaths.  

Russians are tiring of it, and they are tiring of Putin’s endless toleration of it.  Increasing numbers of ordinary people and elites want the conflict finished with the destruction of Ukraine.  Conventional weapons suffice.  Nuclear means are not needed.

By never enforcing Russia’s declared “red lines,” Putin created a picture of Russia unwilling and unable to fight for its sovereignty.  

The West has noticed this, and Trump, having again abandoned the peace role and returned as bully has ordered the President of Russia to agree to a cease fire in place without addressing the root cause of the conflict.  

If Putin agrees, Russia will have lost her sovereignty.  Whether this simple fact has occurred to Putin and Lavrov I do not know. Alexander Dugin, Russia’s famous philosopher has tried to tell them.

The White House has declared that Trump’s meeting with Putin is off for now.  Trump has again rolled out the “punishments.”  The US Treasury has imposed additional sanctions on the Russian’s oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft.  The US Treasury’s excuse is: “Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.” 

“Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine” means Putin’s unwillingness to accept orders from bully Trump.

Trump’s sanctions have no adverse effect on Russia.  Following Trump’s oil sanctions, the oil price spiked.  Given the inelastic demand for oil, the higher oil price will offset any decline in the amount sold.  Trump’s foolish oil sanctions do dispossess Americans and Europeans who invested in the two Russian oil companies and now have huge gains that they cannot access because their accounts have been frozen by the buffoon’s previous sanctions.  American investors’ accounts in Russian oil companies are valued at zero despite the high value of the stocks.  The American investors are pressured by their account providers to write off their Russian holdings.  In other words Trump’s “sanctions on Russia” dispossesses Americans and Europeans.

The only effect of the White House Buffoon’s Russian sanctions has been to ruin European and American investors.

Not content with Russia, China, and Iran as America’s chosen enemies, Trump creates more enemies for America with his preposterous order to India not to buy Russian oil.

How is Trump going to enforce his order? Is the buffoon going to start bombing India?  Is there not one ounce of intelligence anywhere in the Trump regime?

Here is what Trump has done.  It is the worst possible.  He has driven up the price of oil which will affect Western economies adversely including his own, and bring more revenues to Russia.  He has finally destroyed Russian illusions about a reconciliation with the West.  Putin is being pressured to give up his groundless hopes and win the war.

The war, or course is now much wider than Ukraine.

The post There Will Be No Ukraine Peace Deal: Putin Should Quickly Win the Conflict Before It Leaves His Control appeared first on LewRockwell.

A month ago I discussed a new hair-brained scheme by which the EU would confiscate Russian government money parked in Belgium.

The Russian money would be used to finance a EU ‘reparation loan’ to Ukraine which would only have to be paid back when Russia would pay war reparations to Ukraine. That at least was the official pronunciation which turned out to be a quote obvious fake.

Another Crazy Idea On How To Steal Russia’s Assets: Make EU Taxpayers Pay For It

A look into the details left many question which no one had answered:

Why would this scheme, as [German Chancellor] Merz say, ‘require budgetary guarantees from member states’? Doesn’t that mean that the tax-payers of those member state will eventually have to pay it? Who’s money is at risk when Russia wins its litigation? Who pays if something goes wrong?

Russia will of course never pay reparations to Ukraine. Nor would the loan be spend on repair or rebuild things in Ukraine. Instead the money would be used to buy weapons from Europe to continue the war for another two years.

The whole idea was a scam. Merz or others did no say so directly but in the end it would obviously be EU taxpayers who have to pay for the ‘loan’.

Earlier this week a Financial Times column confirmed (archived) my interpretation of the deal:

This week, EU leaders will discuss a “reparation loan” to Ukraine, tied to Russia’s obligation to pay for the devastation President Vladimir Putin has wrought.
…
Around €140bn would be lent to Kyiv and only repaid out of any reparations from Moscow. Without them, the EU as the lender would not get its money back. The EU would itself fund the loan by requiring Euroclear, the Belgian securities depository where most of Russia’s hard-currency reserves are blocked, to lend it cash built up as sanctioned Russian investments have matured. In return, Brussels would post what amounts to an IOU, backed by member states and later the next EU budget.

The plan suffers from contradictions. The proposal does not actually touch Russia’s assets, in spite of efforts to depict it as making Moscow pay. In fact, it explicitly rules out changing Russia’s legal claims. It is only an EU private financial institution (Euroclear) that will be strong-armed here — although other G7 countries are looking for ways to join in, and Brussels is hinting that more European banks with some Russian assets could be added.

But any new burden will fall only on European taxpayers. If Russia never pays reparations, the EU forgives Ukraine’s loan but still has to shoulder its own obligation incurred to fund it.

To finance the $140 billion would bring additional pressure on the already over-extended budgets of EU member states. EU leaders would not admit that but tried to fudge the issue by pressing Belgium to carry the risk. But the sum in question exceeds the Belgium government’s yearly spending.

The Belgium Prime Minister Bart De Wever rejected the scam and set out conditions:

First, Belgium wants a full sharing of legal risk across EU member states. Mr De Wever warned that Belgium could face “giant lawsuits” given Euroclear’s role, and said any decision must ensure the burden is not borne by a single jurisdiction. “If you want to do this, we must do it together,” he said.

Second, Belgium is seeking explicit guarantees that, if funds were ever required to be returned—for example following litigation or a settlement—every member state would contribute to any repayments. The Prime Minister said consequences “must not end up entirely on Belgium” because the assets are booked through a Belgian-based financial market infrastructure.

Third, he called for parallel action by other jurisdictions where Russian state assets are immobilised. Belgium, he said, is aware of “large sums” located in other countries and wants coordinated steps so that implementation is not concentrated on one venue. “If we move on this, let us move together,” he added.

The third point was a deal killer as the U.S. had already rejected to take part in the scheme.

Any further discussion was moot and yesterday the whole idea, first proposed by EU commission President Ursula von der Leyen, was canceled (archived):

EU leaders have failed to back a €140bn loan to Kyiv using frozen Russian state assets following opposition from Belgium, dashing Ukraine’s hopes of accessing funds at the beginning of next year to stave off Russia’s aggression.

Belgium demanded cast-iron guarantees it would not suffer financially, fearing legal and financial repercussions should Russia retaliate against the plan. The assets are held at the Brussels-based Euroclear central securities depository.

Leaders of 26 EU countries — Hungary abstained — asked the European Commission to “present, as soon as possible, options for financial support based on an assessment of Ukraine’s financing needs” but did not formally back a loan based on Russia’s immobilised assets.

They agreed to return to the discussion at their next meeting in December.
…
The failure to back the scheme could delay the commission’s goal of having financial support for Ukraine approved by the end of the year, and could complicate funding plans for Kyiv’s weapons purchases.

It seems that other countries, not only Belgium, had woken up to the risk:

[Slovak Prime Minister] Robert Fico requests that “the European Commission propose other options for financing Ukraine in the next two years,” claiming that his proposal was accepted. “Whatever decision is made, I want us to be completely clear about this in Slovakia. The government I lead will never, I emphasize, never, sign any loan guarantee for Ukraine for military expenditures. We will also not allocate a single cent from our state budget for this purpose,” Fico clarified. According to him, Slovakia is ready to help Ukraine, but only humanitarianly.

The Prime Minister considers it a mistake that the initiative to use frozen Russian assets for a loan to Ukraine was made public before the European Commission provided answers to all possible stated risks. The plan “may encounter reality and end in failure at the next European Council in December, when a decision is to be made,” he added.

With that statement the utterly stupid idea ended with another slap in Ursula von der Leyen’s face.

The Ukrainian president claims he needs $140 billion to finance the war over the next two years. The EU’s attempt to steal Russian assets for that purpose has failed. It is unlikely to find an unanimous vote for any solution that will support a loan of that size.

Which brings us nearer to the point where Ukraine and the West will have to file for peace because they run out of money.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post EU Commission Plan of ‘Russian Assets’ Loan to Ukraine Ends in Defeat appeared first on LewRockwell.

Downloads

• TM May June 2025.pdf

It’s not physicians that are running public health. Maybe I have a vested interest in making that statement, but it’s true.

It’s the master of public health awardees who are running public health. An MPH is a two-year degree which does not require you to have any prior training in health, in biology, or in medicine. It’s primarily focused on the use of big data and statistical analysis, often to optimize single variables, which is consistent with the idea that we have narrow—I would use the term siloed—sectors within the federal bureaucracy.

These bureaucratic structures tend to drive toward optimization of those parameters that they believe are within their domain to the exclusion of impacts on other domains and other parameters. As a matter of fact, this is one of the big challenges in bureaucracy. They’re often fighting over the boundaries between their silo and adjacent silos, and who has the right to control those boundaries and how those resources are allocated across those silos.

The practice of medicine has a centuries-long history of rejecting and ridiculing innovators and dissenters. It’s no surprise that all of this follows a narrative that we have seen played out over the centuries, where physicians, who are taught to assimilate a set of truths without question, and to implement and regurgitate those truths, are extremely resistant to change. They view change as heresy. In many ways, what we have in modern public health and medicine more closely resembles a religion than it resembles anything that we might call science. In our books, we refer to this as scientism, and we assert that scientism has been substituted for religion in modern political action and thought. So, this religion of belief in a set of endorsed scientific truths, or pseudoscientific truths, is scientism, and it has a high priesthood.

MAHA and MAGA

Now I’d like to talk and specifically focus on this new dialectic that exists between Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) as a movement and Make America Great Again (MAGA) as a movement.

They’re actually two separate things, and they have different constituencies and different drivers. In many ways, they resolve into proregulatory big government initiatives versus promotion of deregulation and small government. In theory, Make America Great Again is more aligned with libertarian principles. Make America Healthy Again, in my opinion, is much more aligned with big government and regulation.

Within that, we can discern some real tensions that are playing out in real time, and will continue to play out over the next four years. And I can’t predict what the outcome is going to be.

It’s worth noting that the MAHA movement exists outside of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the government, and encompasses many societal issues outside of the focus of the Trump administration. For example, homesteading, medical and personal sovereignty, and personal responsibility for healthcare choices. These may all be outside of the MAHA whole-of-government approach. Remember, this is a presidential directive now, the MAHA Commission. It has specific objectives, goals, requirements, and deliverables that are separate from MAHA as a movement.

For this discussion, I’m primarily concerned with the MAHA directives within the government, but MAHA is much bigger than that. I just want to make that key point: it’s bigger than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It’s been going on for years. And in many ways, it was Calley and Casey Means, through a series of interviews, including, I think, four hits on Tucker and one on Rogan, that really brought this to the fore. In their logic, for example, Big Food and Big Ag have been contaminated with the money from Philip Morris that was required to be moved out of Big Tobacco and was moved into Big Food. And in Calley and Casey Means’s thesis, Big Food and Big Ag applied the marketing strategies and approach that had characterized Big Tobacco, making for an addicted consumer base, as a great business model. When you see a lot of the activities that are associated with Big Food and Big Ag, it’s hard to escape the underlying truth of that metaphor.

The Origins of MAHA

Now, MAHA as we know it now has emerged mainly from the left out of frustration with the Democratic Party’s corruption and rejection, and it has embraced the center-right.

Bobby wasn’t originally talking about making America healthy again. He assimilated that agenda as it began to build momentum during the election and made it his own. But in so doing, he was coming from the left. Remember, Kennedy’s thesis was that there existed a population of what he called Kennedy Democrats that we could really call New Deal Democrats. They are the Democrat Party of the ’60s—pre-Reagan, pre-Carter, pre-Clinton. Those are the people that Bobby thought would come back to him within the Democratic Party. That thesis failed for a variety of different reasons.

So MAHA has emerged mainly from the left, out of frustration, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by MAGA center-right populists, including many formerly associated with the Tea Party movement, in part because MAHA was rejected by the Left.

Bobby’s inability to gain any traction within the Democratic primaries, where he was locked out, kind of forced him into this position. And at one point, some of you may be aware, there was active outreach to Bobby from the Libertarian Party, which could have enabled Bobby to be on the ballot in all 50 states without having to have this enormous campaign funded by Nicole Shanahan. But Bobby didn’t want to do that. He didn’t want to position himself as a libertarian. In the end, he ran as an independent. That failed.

The arc of the presidential campaign of RFK Jr. closely adheres to this narrative. Bobby started out seeking the Democratic Party nomination representing Kennedy Democrats, but the Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to that of his father and uncle’s time.

There were the changes in national political thought on both left and right wrought by Carter and Reagan. And then there was the succession of the military-industrial corporatist Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, and Biden on the left, and to no one’s surprise, apparently other than Bobby and his team, today’s Democratic Party makes it abundantly clear that there’s no room for a Kennedy—this Kennedy—in this tent.

So he decided to make a run as an independent. Nicole Shanahan stepped up to bankroll it, and amazingly, they managed to get on the ballot in all 50 states. But it became clear that, once again, an independent run would primarily function as a spoiler. Now I know this because I was very close to the campaign at this point in time and was very aware of all the discussions that were going on. What should Bobby do? What are his options?

The pivotal moment was when RFK Jr. placed a sympathetic phone call to Donald Trump after the assassination attempt, which still reeks of a deep state operation, much like what happened to Bobby’s uncle and father. And Bobby did so in a spectacular manner, with a ringing endorsement, a speech that will live on through the ages. I think many of you have heard and seen this.

So, MAHA originates from the left, but the appeal crosses all party lines. Who does not want to be more healthy? The MAHA mandate from President Trump is to demonstrate measurable improvements in the health of US citizens within 12 to 18 months, with a particular focus on chronic disease and children’s health. One aspect of this effort will involve refocusing Health and Human Services on health promotion and deemphasizing disease-specific treatment. It’s the largest branch of the US government, by the way, and exceeds the size of the DOD by budget, at least the visible budget.

At its core, MAHA is predominantly proregulation. Let that sink in. The logic is that we must use regulatory authority to improve transparency and eliminate that which leads to unhealthy outcomes. Examples include drugs with side effects that, when considered in whole, do not have a strongly favorable risk-benefit ratio, an example being glyphosate (or Roundup) contamination of our grain and soybeans. Of course, recently, we have the removal of food dyes. However, there’s also a deregulatory aspect to the MAHA movement. For example, is unpasteurized milk really a health risk? What health-promoting properties are associated with unpasteurized milk?

Similarly, there is the move toward backyard poultry and eating locally slaughtered grass-fed beef, and reexamination of the widespread US policy of fluoridating municipal water supplies. These are all pushes against big government mandates. There’s also an investigational research aspect. For example, what are the drivers behind the explosion of autism, obesity, and other childhood chronic diseases? This is the explicit mandate coming from Donald Trump through the MAHA Commission. To date, the MAHA movement has primarily focused on things that big government can do to promote improved health. This is where MAHA is going currently.

Who isn’t for improved children’s health? Who isn’t for improved food purity? There are 10,000 petroleum-based compounds that are authorized by the FDA for inclusion in our food supply right now. And there has been absolutely no investigation, long term, of any of these because the way the system works is once the bureaucracy makes a decision, they rarely, if ever, go back and revisit that decision. And that is rampant through the entire HHS structure. It is the reason why these food dyes took so long to be banned. The data have been there for decades. The information about the role of these dyes in ADHD in children has been known for a very long period of time, is exceedingly well documented, and yet the FDA did nothing because their policy is that once a decision is made, they never go back and look at it. The CDC and FDA tend to not set up any processes where they revisit past decisions.

And this also, by the way, can be seen in the vaccine enterprise.

Short-term data was acquired, in the case of many of the pediatric vaccines, during the ’60s using rules, regulations, policies, and clinical trial research norms that are long since obsolete.

But those limited data from back then allowed the FDA at that point in time to make a “go” decision on authorizing those vaccines for the pediatric vaccine schedule, and they’ve never gone back and revisited that with new data. It’s just not in the structure. The whole structure of the approval process is driven by approving the thing in front of them right now, not going back and looking at whether or not there’ve been interactions between any of these drugs or compounds or vaccines, whether or not that decision was a good decision, or whether or not they missed some long-term safety signal because they were only looking at short-term data. It’s not done because that is kind of fundamental to the nature of bureaucracy. Once they make a decision, they don’t ever want to revisit it. It becomes locked in stone, and they move forward from that.

A derivative of this is that behind the potential of the MAHA initiative to improve our lives, and, importantly, improve childhood chronic disease, is the threat that if this gets institutionalized and bureaucratized, it will morph into another overbearing set of state mandates. There is no way to avoid that.

The Regulatory Impulse Behind MAHA

And, basically, my talk here is a plea to you folks, who are kind of at the tip of the spear concerning bureaucracy and the administrative state. We need you. We need your intellectual input to help set the boundaries and parameters around the MAHA initiative. It’s not being done right now. Nobody’s talking about what the proper boundary should be. We seem to have a consensus that this is necessary. That actually is debatable, but that is the current consensus. But no one is talking about what happens once the administrative state gets its teeth into this initiative.

Let’s say there’s a person who loves McDonald’s hamburgers, consumed with sugary Coca-Cola. Should the state mandate that such a person not eat these things with clear-cut health risks? Should the state outlaw cigars? What about regulating foods? Where should MAHA draw the line? What principles should guide these decisions? What is the proper role of small government in food and drug regulation? This is unexplored territory as far as I’m concerned, and it needs intellectual input. It needs guidance. It needs informed discussion. Where are the boundaries? And if we don’t set those boundaries, I guarantee that the administrative state will continue to just expand and run rampant as it assimilates the MAHA initiative and begins to institutionalize it and exploit it. This really involves the boundaries between individual sovereignty, libertarianism, Murray Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism, and the utilitarian socialist logic of modern public health.

The modern “public health enterprise” seeks the greatest good for the greatest number and is driven by narrow analysis of large data sets to identify, regulate, promote, and mandate specific healthcare interventions, such as vaccines, while often disregarding other related issues, including long-term unanticipated or difficultto- predict consequences. It is a “public health enterprise” that seeks to optimize collective health outcomes rather than optimizing health opportunities coupled with respect for individual autonomy and choice—which is what I advocate. It is a “public health enterprise” that has repeatedly used top-down management via government, insurers, and health management organizations to require and deploy preapproved treatment protocols rather than to promote individually optimized healthcare management and promotion reflecting each patient’s complexities. In other words, what I’m saying is the practice of modern medicine, particularly under Obamacare, has come down to protocoldriven application of modules.

If you are tested and answer questions that can now be interpreted by AI quite efficiently, you will be binned into one of these categories, and then you will be subjected to a preapproved protocol.

Modern physicians—I’m not defending my caste; it’s just a fact—don’t have a lot of operational latitude under the current structure. They have to implement the policies, procedures, and protocols that they’re given; otherwise they lose their jobs.

And when you’re sitting with the chains of a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of a million dollars in debt at high interest rates—so you basically have a couple of mortgages—you don’t have any choice.

Consider seat belt mandates. Like many big government initiatives that stand on the top of slippery slopes, there’s a general consensus that it’s right and proper for government to mandate that seat belts be installed on cars. But is it right to legally require their use when driving?

Next comes motorcycle helmets. Same issues, slightly less clear. Cigarette smoking.

In all three cases, the argument is made that irresponsible health behaviors by individuals cost all of society due to increased healthcare and insurance costs, including publicly subsidized costs and loss of person years. The same logic can then be applied all the way down to whether or not the state should mandate your dietary choices, which is why I used the McDonald’s hamburger example.

Should we allow citizens to experiment with nutraceuticals and health supplements that are not officially endorsed by the FDA? What rights do they have to do that? They may be costing the public health enterprise money.

They may be costing us tax dollars that are avoidable. This is the logic that we confront. This is where we risk going with the MAHA initiative. And there we go, straight to nanny state medical fascism.

But seat belts save lives. Air traffic controllers save lives most of the time. You get my point. The greatest good for the greatest number has become a logical fallacy. For a while, it seemed to work, but when you look at the twenty-first-century incarnation in particular, it has become badly corrupted. The history and reality behind vaccines is perhaps the best example in modern times, but the entire edifice of “public health” as it’s practiced today needs to be deconstructed.

Public health is good when the objectives are clear, they make sense to everyone, and their implementation is transparent and their results measurable. We have wonderful examples: clean water, sanitation, modern sewers, sewage treatment, waste management (which, by the way, has had the biggest impact on the decline in infectious disease. It’s not vaccines. Credit where credit’s due), clean air in places with local air pollution, antibiotics, advanced surgical procedures. We can go on and on and on.

This is the history of public health in the twentieth century, but things seem to go downhill from there, particularly with allopathic Western medicine. It’s morphed into monetized “sick care” and then monetized sickness in all its aspects.

If MAHA is to transition from merely a populist uprising and a set of immediate grievances to a new and sustainable set of public health policies, we need to take some time to think—to think about and define acceptable limits on the role of the state in promoting and advancing public health, and in some cases, mandating limits on the infringement of individual sovereignty and autonomy.

Immediate short-term interventions are absolutely necessary, and I applaud the use of both the bully pulpit as well as executive orders. But if MAHA is to become more than just a populist uprising, if it’s to result in sustainable, positive, long-term policy changes, it’s also important to take the time required to examine, define, and develop public support for the boundaries between the proper role of a constitutional republic–based federal government and the constitutional role of individual states— which are structurally responsible for regulating the practice of medicine, not the federal government—and both the sovereign rights of the individual and the global right to truly informed consent to medical interventions.

I’m going to close with this to drive home this final point. As a component of his commitment to no longer, “walk on eggshells,” the US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—I think it was two days ago—recently stated that the covid genetic “vaccines” were experimental products, that the vaccine mandates were illegal. These mandated experimental products were associated with severe adverse events, including myocarditis, stroke, and death. They were mandated, and the US bureaucracy actively suppressed the ability of those who either were forced to accept or willingly accepted these products to obtain informed consent.

These actions were violations of the Nuremberg accords. You cannot shirk that anymore. It’s in your face. With Pete Hegseth’s statement, this is now out in the open. There must be accountability and consequences. In close, I challenge the Mises Institute to work to help establish appropriate limits on the federal bureaucracy and to insist that these limits, like the Nuremberg accords, be enforced. If we don’t have enforcement, we will see the same things recapitulated because, as was eloquently said in the prior talk, this is the nature of bureaucracy.

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

The post MAGA, MAHA, and Our Growing Health Bureaucracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the universe of alternative media, the immense size and influence of the Science/Medicine Industrial Complex (including “Big Pharma”) is well-known and commonly accepted.

However, this massive network of organizations might be better understood as Big Research.

A recent investigation dealing with UAB football (too embarrassing to cancel) led me to perform further research into the key source of funding for this university, the largest employer in the state of Alabama.

The revenue UAB derives from scientific “research grants” awarded by the federal government is of a scale that boggles the mind of this citizen researcher.

This examination of UAB funding sources should illustrate the massive amounts of money flowing from Washington D.C. – as well as various other medical foundations and private sources – into the coffers of certain higher education institutions that have leveraged allocations labeled “scientific research” into money-printing factories.

In the past seven years, UAB – a public college of 23,000 students and 24,000 (!) employees – generated at least $5 billion in revenue from government grants, most coming from the federal government and most from grants bestowed by the National institutes of Health (NIH).

In Fiscal Year 2022, UAB was the recipient of a “record” $774.5 million in federal grants and funding (source: al.com Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist John Archibald).

From 2018 through 2022, UAB received $3.178 billion in science research grants. Assuming annual funding levels were similar in 2023, 2024 and 2025, UAB has pocketed more than $5 billion in “research” money.

According to an analysis published by the The Urban Institute in 2022, 37 percent of UAB’s operating revenues came from federal funding. Only two colleges in America – MIT (48 percent) and Johns Hopkins (42 percent) – received a larger percentage of their total income from the federal government.

For context, every year UAB makes approximately twice the amount of revenue from federal grants as the university does from student tuition and fees.

According to the school’s financial report from 2020, the school netted $244.93 million in tuition and fees in Fiscal 2020 and $484 million from “grants and contracts.” (Even tuition is federally subsidized, as nation-wide, 31.6 percent of students receive Pell Grants. I also learned that graduate students who help perform medical research are paid with federal dollars.)

It pays to be a “research” university

In 2022, UAB received $774 million in federal funding, more than double the $332.4 million it received as a legislative approproriation from the State of Alabama.

The vast majority of UAB’s federal funding comes from the NIH, the parent agency of the NIAID, the sub-agency headed by Anthony Fauci through 2023.

According to various sources, UAB received $413 million from the NIH in 2023 and $407 million in 2022. Indeed, the Alabama college is in the “top 1 percent” of colleges that receive grants from this agency.

Also, the NIH is not the only “public health agency” that showers money on UAB. The same year the college received more than $20 million from the CDC and $11.5 million from the National Science Foundation.

The college also benefits from “private grants and contracts,” which presumably come from “partners” in Big Pharma like Pfizer, NGOs and various foundations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2019, the University received $81.2 million from “private” grants, according to the 2020 CPA financial report.

The school also derives income from patents and royalties on drugs and vaccines its faculty helped create.

According to a UAB press release, “other growth areas include industry and clinical trials. Total industry awards, which include grants, funded trials and services, more than doubled (106 percent) since 2018 to exceed $150 million in 2022.”

For further context, the amount of revenue UAB derives every year from federal funding and federal grants is at least $550 million more than the entire operating budget of Jacksonville State University, a four-year Alabama college with approximately 9,000 students.

According to a Google AI query, 88 percent of the “medical research money” distributed to Alabama’s 34 four-year colleges went to just one university – UAB.

The key to the operation/scam …

The justification for the vast amounts of “research money” flowing into UAB coffers is that these investments “save lives” and improve the health of Alabamians and Americans.

Indeed, earlier this year, an RFK, Jr. initiative at the HHS threatened to make “huge cuts to biomedical research grants” distributed to “research colleges” like UAB.

According al.com columnist John Archibald, “several (UAB) professors and doctors privately were close to panic … wondering if they should pack their bags.”

According to the all-important authorized narrative, possible cuts in medical research would result in horrific spikes in future deaths and unfathomable medical misery.

To emphasize the requisite scare-mongering point, Archibald quoted Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin.

“…You’re either pro-Alabamian and American health or you’re not,” said Mayor Woodfin. “There’s no in-between here. And when you cut funding, you hurt not just employers, but you hurt the people who voted for you as it relates to the ability for life-saving medicine, period.”

In one column, Archibald urged Alabama Republican senator Katie Britt to fight to protect “life-saving research” being conducted at UAB.

Not surprisingly, Britt did just this, writing a letter to President Trump to “speed up the release of NIH funds to UAB.”

According to Sen. Britt’s spokesperson Grace Evans:

“Senator Britt has been a strong advocate for ensuring the NIH remains the gold-standard of research and innovation across the nation and the world. She has continued to express the need for taxpayer dollars … which includes funding life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama.”

According to Sen. Britt’s letter, “withholding or delaying these funds could undermine critical research; risk jobs supported by scientific research and delay Americans’ access to life-saving treatments.”

Segueing to my editorial comments …

As a jaded, skeptical contrarian, I’m happy to challenge the entire “life-saving research” narrative.

For starters, it should be noted for the record that every phD and medical researcher at UAB (like all “research” universities) was spectacularly wrong about Covid and the Covid response, including the necessity for “life-saving” vaccines.

I recently published an article about a UAB faculty member who spent 400 words in a guest column telling citizens the novel coronavirus was largely spread from physical surfaces.

My long-time readers also know that Anthony Fauci’s successor at the NIAID was Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who graduated to this job after serving for years as the director of UAB’s highly-acclaimed Infectious Disease Department.

While a revered and honored Birmingham resident, Dr. Marrazzo, like 99.9 percent of higher education experts, was wrong about everything Covid.

Furthermore, she helped lead the safety trials for remdesivir (nicknamed “Run, Death is Near!”), a formerly FDA-rejected drug which was “researched” and “developed” by UAB and the NIH.

According to many contrarians and ignored hospital whistleblowers, this “ground-breaking, life-saving” Covid “treatment” has killed thousands of American citizens. (One of UAB’s grants – for $37.5 million – was awarded to administer safety trials for this life-taking drug.)

In researching this story, I found an article about another esteemed UAB faculty expert, Dr. Paul Goepfert, a “UAB vaccine expert.”

In November 2020, Yellowhammer News ran a big story on this vaccine expert after Pfizer (a regular benefactor of UAB), reported its vaccine was “90 percent effective.”

“That’s tremendous news,’ said Dr. Goepfert. “… The most optimistic of us were thinking about 70% effective, so 90% effectiveness is fantastic.”

Goepfert advised … “if the Pfizer vaccine is indeed 90% effective, around 60% of the population would need to take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity.”

Applying “follow-up journalism” to Yellow Hammer News’ glowing report, at least 60 percent of the population did get two doses of these “vaccines” and “herd immunity” did not happen. In fact, the vaccinated become much more likely to be infected once, twice or four times than the unvaccinated.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Medical Research Scam appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you were alive to witness the events of 9/11, you probably remember the sudden emergence of the “Coexist” bumper stickers and t-shirts across the US after the tragedy. The intended message being that different cultures must be “tolerant” of each other and live in harmony. If you caught yourself with a twinge of visible pain in your face every time you saw this slogan, you were not alone.

Maybe it’s a subconscious aversion to hippies and their body odor, but I think the distaste for the message goes much deeper. It’s built into the DNA of every human being – It’s a part of our genetic memory. Every culture has an inherent drive to protect itself from competing cultures and ideologies.

We have learned over thousands of generations that culture is not just social expression, it is a carefully crafted fortress protecting us from being invaded and destroyed by hostile forces seeking to take what we have created. Homogeneous culture helps to maintain the values that keep our societies safe, industrious and stable.

Interestingly, the person who first created the “Coexist” artwork, a Polish man named Piotr Młodożeniec, was a staunch proponent of Polish Independence from the Soviet Union. The guy promoted Coexistence, but even he couldn’t tolerate the communists. It would seem that some ideals are mutually exclusive. Some spaces cannot be shared by certain beliefs.

This reality runs contrary to the propaganda we have been bombarded with in the west for decades. Americans have been regaled with “Melting Pot” narratives since childhood. We are told that our country was built on open immigration. Even the Statue of Liberty says we must accept with open arms the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” wherever they may travel from.

Of course, the woman who wrote that poem in 1883 (called “The New Colossus”) was Emma Lazarus, a feminist socialist. Early socialists viewed workers as a global class, a weapon that could be exploited to disrupt nation states and further the spread of what would eventually become communism.

Keep in mind that this time period was the beginning of the melting pot narrative in the US, and it was widely supported by industrialists seeking cheap labor to fill their factories. The motives of the robber barons and the motives of the socialists coincided. And this is where we find the roots of our modern-day crisis. Though they pretend to be at odds, the collusion between ultra-rich elites and the political left has existed for well over a century.

Today, far-left movements have completely merged with the institutions of the mega-rich. We call this partnership “globalism” and a key pillar of their agenda is STILL mass immigration, on a scale that dwarfs anything the west saw in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The mass immigration of the “Gilded Age” was largely from nations in Europe with western heritage – But in our era, the migrants are coming from third-world enclaves, places where socialism is the norm or Islam is the dominant religion. We have seen the ideological ravages of this program in Europe where liberals and Christians alike face a social brutality that they have not dealt with in decades.

Furthermore, it is a brutality we are not allowed to defend ourselves against. For if we do fight back, we become the villains. This is what makes multiculturalism the perfect weapon: It is a method of attack that uses our own ingrained sense of empathy and fairness against us. In order to stop the invasion, we have to abandon certain ideals of the liberal epoch – We have to embrace intolerance, because it’s the only way we can survive.

That is to say, tolerant liberalism must die, at least until globalism is defeated. I’m not denouncing “democracy” and its original tenets. However, I will not deny the fact that the west, in its quest for ultimate individual freedom and ultimate fairness, has foolishly abandoned its survival instincts for the sake of a naive pie-in-the-sky vision.

Most third-world cultures despise our progressive notions and laugh at our ideas of fairness. They only see us as an easy target to be ransacked. They see us as rubes, as easy marks. Their ideologies center on taking what can be taken from anyone outside of their tribal circles. They consider us a fat lamb ready for slaughter.

When I see events like those in Ireland this week, where riots have erupted after an African migrant sexually assaulted a 10-year-old Irish girl, I have to accept the basic tenets of tribalism which tell me that it is better to err on the side of caution and avoid integration with other cultures outside of the west as much as possible. It’s not about skin color, it’s about principles. It’s not about racism, it’s about self preservation.

Globalists have painted “tribalism” and “nationalism” as grotesque remnants of the barbaric past, and they have done this for strategic reasons.

Leftists and globalists desire the erasure of national boundaries; specifically, they’ve targeted western nations for subjugation. Why? Because the west is the fount of liberty and Christianity. In order to construct a global “new world order” based on Marxist atheism, luciferianism, moral relativism, etc., the west must be weakened or destroyed first.

The elites have determined that the most convenient weakness of the west is our liberal willingness to share our culture and its riches with outsiders. What better way to bring down a society than to flood it with ideologically opposed masses of people, and then attack anyone who complains as if they are not living up to their historic values of liberty.

This goes well beyond the Cloward-Piven Strategy, it’s not just about buying votes with welfare subsidies and open borders. No, this is about erasing the soul of western civilization forever.

Multiculturalism asks us to forsake our common sense and our instincts. It demands that we offer ourselves up as a sacrifice for the “greater good” of integration and coexistence. But there is no such thing as coexistence.

Third world migrants have no intention of tolerating our ideals; they would put us under their boot heel if they could. Leftists and globalists view patriots and conservatives and Christians with rabid disdain. They want us dead and gone because we are an obstacle to their power. They tell us this on a daily basis. Maybe we should start believing them and act accordingly?

There is no reason for us to tolerate them. We’re not taking the high road, we’re committing suicide.

Thomas Jefferson, a man keenly aware of the plight of migrants and the oppression taking place across the European world, was still highly reticent to accept the idea of mass immigration. He noted:

“They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

In other words, Jefferson warned that migrants living most of their lives being indoctrinated by foreign beliefs might not have the capacity to understand the nuances of American life and liberty. They will instead take what they like from American culture while disregarding important factors of assimilation and responsibility. This is exactly what we are witnessing across the western world today in the face of mass immigration programs designed by globalists and administered by leftist politicians.

We might have a brief reprieve over the next few years with Donald Trump in office, but a permanent solution is not in place. Leftists have no intention of setting aside their open border efforts. Hell, the “No Kings” protests were basically an attempt to co-opt American patriotism in the name of open borders.

Woke leftists who hate America tried to pretend as if it’s the patriotic duty of Americans to support illegal immigration. If you love America, you have to be willing to destroy America.

Like I said, this is the essence of multiculturalism: Using our sense of fairness against us and weaponizing our empathy so that we are too scared to protect ourselves from the attack. The answer is to stop caring about fairness. The answer is to rediscover our tribalism, to reject multiculturalism, socialism and globalism and refuse to compromise any longer. The answer is to leave liberal concepts of tolerance behind.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Multiculturalism Is a Globalist Weapon and You’re Not Allowed To Protect Yourself appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Every boat we strike saves the lives of 25,000 Americans,” says Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.  Wouldn’t that be something if it were true! How simple the problems of our post-imperial US world would be!

The White House press conference of October 23rd centered on the President, sitting on a golden chair between Ken and Barbie.  His staff of beautiful women and slightly eggheaded men all articulately competing to flatter the President for his brilliance, his boldness, his courage, his caretaking commitment to the United States. He commended his staff as “most talented” at what they do, “naturals,” he said, reading my mind when I had assumed they were made of plastic.

I personally like to watch and listen to President Trump, his tenor, his expository confidence and an accent that mixes New York City with something else I can’t explain.  The content of what he says is also a lot of fun, and he has wholly rejuvenated the world of adjectives and fish stories.  I love the many Trump impersonators who recognize this, and use it to entertain us around the world.

Trump took a moment to lecture a Democrat legislator for using the F-word seven times in one sentence. Trump advised that Democrats do what he does: Use the word only in every seventh contact with the press.  Using the F-word is a tool, like all things, to be leveraged, as Trump sees fit.

Nixon’s War on Drugs melded long ago with Bush’s War on Terror, and with this, the latest half century of American empire is cemented by this collective understanding of the US state, and its only purpose.  A flexible, seamless bodysuit of war, designed by the Military Industrial complex and their equity and bankster partners, has been sewn up by a Congress of miseducated seamstresses, and delivered to the Executive Branch for a pittance and a pat on the head.

American visionary Randolph Bourne understood that war is the health of the state.  Americans tend to assume the question was settled by Bourne’s Columbia University professor John “we are all pacifists who just need one more war” Dewey.  War has become the health of America specifically, war is now America’s special power, and we the people today demand only that it be more deadly, and more efficient, that it benefit us more rather than less.

When asked if he would request a Declaration of War from Congress for his ongoing war for Venezuelan oil and regional supremacy, Trump answered in the negative.  He said, no, we are just going to kill people.  Trump – speaking for the executive branch and Americans in general – is simply going to kill people.  That’ll work, right? As Dewey and the war for peace crowd would say a century ago – and as Bourne would correctly reject and counter today – it’s just the pragmatic thing to do.

Later in the same press conference, Trump actually brought up the unacceptability of politicians threatening to kill people, whether political enemies or not.  Trump ridiculed and condemned threats to kill opposition leaders, and their wives and children, made by American politicians, bringing up the Jay Jones situation in the Virginia Attorney General’s race.

Jay’s problem, and the problem for many on the left, is that only the king is allowed to kill his enemies.  Thus, their challenge is to find another Obama-like figure to charm and inspire the “democracy” in order to gain the Executive branch and rule at will.

The brutalist Obama Library, opening soon, offers the true architectural face of the State.  Obama, the master of illusion, must have preferred this design in an odd transparent moment.  His true self, his very Peace Prize-winning soul, always vibed to brutalism.  Self-awareness in humans, in families, in businesses, and in states, tends to create self-doubt, and reduce confidence.  The possibility of being wrong, immoral, or evil, if recognized, can raise good questions, that in turn shape decisions in a way that goes beyond mere pragmatism and short-lived emotion.

Yet, to pose as the President of the United States, and to exercise empire on behalf of that monstrous government, demands an overly confident front man, vulnerable to flattery, desirous of unearned advantage, trusting blindly in his own dark soul, in high hopes of staying on top – not boldly pursuing truth and justice.  Men and women who can and will naturally obfuscate, who can view the ethical and moral chasms within and around them as modern art rather than warning signs, who enjoy the power to kill any enemy they choose by right, on no other authority than rage or envy – these are the Presidents of the United States.

This executive progression is so normalized today that Trump increasingly says the quiet part out loud. For this we are indeed blessed, as younger generations will be well equipped to challenge the sclerotic state with the innocent wisdom of youth, as Randolph Bourne did in 1918, or as Etienne de la Boetie did in 1552.  Both died at age 32, and yet both are vividly alive today, their observations and perceptions educating the planet that the state’s necessary evolution, its incessant march to mass murder and tyranny, exists solely to be exposed, ridiculed, disobeyed, and ultimately altered or abolished, to use the words of Thomas Jefferson in 1776, age 33.

The state has little use for men like Bourne, Del La Boetie, or Jefferson, but the people do.

Today, Trump threatens, tariffs, embargoes, insults and bombs the world, for the good of the state. His ally Netanyahu, with the shortsighted support of 80% of Israelis, seeks to physically and spiritually erase his enemies – within and beyond Israel’s legal borders as popular and pragmatic policy.  Trump’s vassal Zelensky and a band of NATO bureaucrats and other accidental comedians seek war for the sake of killing people, within and beyond their borders, to solve the political crisis of elite rule among European substates, something the US itself chose Trump to address at home, thus far being gravely disappointed.

Some critique what they claim is a rise of death cults, as if somehow these cults have taken over the state, around the world, making them warlike, unreasonable, immoral, and bent on slaughter.  Instead, we can increasingly see that the state itself is the cult, parked on the sixth sigma of nature’s norm.  Self-aware only to the degree of knowing it holds but a minority stake of society, economy, and faith; jealous and enraged if even one person remains uncowed and unwowed by its ridiculousness.

Well, that’s what I got from the latest White House press event.  How about you?

The post What I Learned at This Week’s White House Press Conference appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump has decided that it’s “Empire First” rather than “America First.” The two are not the same at all. “Empire First” means continuing the endless wars that have nothing to do with America. It means bailing out Argentina at the expense of American farmers and taxpayers. It means, trying to keep the idea alive that every inch of the planet must be under the thumb of the U.S. federal government. That ideology has been running on fumes for decades. The question was Can we pivot back to “America First” before total bankruptcy hits? That was the promise and hope of electing Trump. He has broken that promise.

The post Trump The Keynesian: Bails Out Argentina While U.S. Farmers Suffer appeared first on LewRockwell.