The Lynching of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I know much of the alt media is suspicious of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. But then they are suspicious about literally everyone in the public eye. I get accused of having blinders on when talking about the Kennedys. I admit to being a lifelong fanboy. But no one can deny that they are treated differently from any other elite family.
As Joe Kennedy, Sr. found out, accumulating great wealth doesn’t necessarily earn you a key to the executive washroom. The Kennedys, as nineteenth century Irish immigrants, were considered “new money” by the One Percent of the 1920s era. It didn’t matter if Joe Kennedy had more money than some of them. They weren’t “old money,” and apparently there’s a difference. So despite becoming the nation’s youngest bank president, Kennedy never fit in with the upper crust. He also had a habit of speaking his mind in private. He was opposed to war philosophically, starting with World War I. That isn’t going to make you any friends in high places. He became a part of the America First movement in the 1930s, and issued that timeless statement about wanting to hear a rationale from any parent for their son being sent to risk his life in a foreign conflict. It’s one of the simplest, and best antiwar comments ever.
Joe Kennedy was fully invested in the lives of his children, especially his two oldest sons, Joe Jr. and Jack. He let them know his views on war, and banking. He was one of the first critics of the Federal Reserve. And he talked a lot about Jewish power, in the entertainment world (Joe Kennedy owned a small film studio) and politics. There is no question that his sons adored him, and absorbed these lessons well. Joe Jr. became the first Kennedy to die unnaturally, when he volunteered for what was in effect a suicide mission, to bomb a German site that had already been abandoned. If you’re wondering why the U.S. military would want to bomb an abandoned site, especially with the son of Joe Kennedy on board, then you’re not court historian material. When Joe Jr. was predictably killed, his father was crushed, to such an extent that he would later almost get into a fistfight in the White House with Harry Truman over the subject.
To add to Joe Kennedy’s misery, his daughter Kathleen, or “Kick” as she was known to the family, was killed in another plane crash after the war. If that was the extent of the heartbreak Old Joe endured, it would still be pretty intense. And statistically nearly impossible, to say the least. Two children killed in two separate plane crashes? And then, of course, he would lose two more sons, Jack and Bobby, to separate murders. So, four unnatural and disparate events, taking the lives of his children. As a father, I can’t imagine the grief he must have endured. Joe had a debilitating stroke, just coincidentally at the start of Jack’s presidential administration, so he was left a speechless observer of what happened during the last decade of his life. Son Teddy, who had already survived yet a third separate plane crash involving his children, being involved in death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, for example.
After RFK’s 1968 assassination, his children literally were left rudderless. Joe Kennedy II, Bobby Jr., David, and Michael were all particularly impacted. Joe II was driving a vehicle which was involved in a crash that resulted in a girl being paralyzed. RFK, Jr. turned to drugs, eventually becoming a heroin addict. Brother David dove even deeper into drugs, and became yet another unnatural death, from an overdose in 1984. Michael would die perhaps most unnaturally of all, when he struck a tree while skiing on New Year’s Eve, 1997. He was an expert skier. But he was a Kennedy. The mantra was already being promulgated, about how “reckless” the Kennedys were. This serves to distract the public from the manner in which they tend to die. Then JFK, Jr. died in a plane crash that was in fact an assassination, as my research has demonstrably shown. JFK, Jr. had an obsession to expose the real killers of his father.
So into this dark historical maelstrom strode Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Already becoming a pariah to the establishment for his research into the links between vaccines and autism, and his public proclamation that our government killed his father and his uncle, he now was squarely in their sights. Rolling Stone memory holed the article he wrote exposing vote fraud, which they had published. He was attacked relentlessly by the Democratic Party, which had once considered the Kennedys true royalty. The media ridiculed him. Stories appeared about him dumping a bear into Central Park for unknown reasons. His own daughter told a bizarre tale of him loading a dead whale on the top of their van. Despite high numbers in early polls, eventually he would drop out and endorse Donald Trump. His disloyal family became even more disloyal over this, and publicly denounced him as a hopeless “conspiracy theorist.”
Trump surprised me by actually nominating RFK, Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services. The medical establishment became apoplectic at the prospect of a real reformer taking over HHS. A bunch of doctors and Nobel Prize winners signed a petition against him. Remember, the likes of Barack Obama and Henry Kissinger were Nobel Prize winners. These criminals love giving themselves trophies. And his family went into overdrive. Caroline Kennedy, the dim witted daughter of JFK, released a ridiculous video, where she recounted a fantastical tale of Bobby, Jr. throwing chickens and mice into a blender to feed his hawks. She also called him a “predator.” She accused him of drug use, which he has readily acknowledged, but nothing which could be construed as being a “predator.” Caroline directly blamed him for the drug use of others, inferring he was responsible for the death of his brother David.
If Caroline was bad, her totally deranged son Jack Schlossberg was worse. JFK’s only grandson has been trotted out from time to time to issue sickening mainstream rebuttals to the release of the JFK assassination files, for instance. You have to watch some of the videos produced by Schlossberg to appreciate the extent of his mental illness. He is a certifiable lunatic. Already regularly calling his much older cousin a “prick,” Schlossberg sunk to the depths of human depravity, and produced a video where he mocked RFK, Jr.’s voice, which has been effected by a genetic disorder. Remember, his great aunt, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, created the Special Olympics. Schlossberg inherited little of the Kennedy good looks, favoring a stocking hat and looking more like an escaped mental patient than the scion to one of history’s most memorable political families. You can watch the video here.
But it was the Senate confirmation hearings that brought out the real wrath against RFK, Jr. Democratic senator after senator, asking the same rehearsed questions, and launching the same inane mainstream attacks on his record and character. Each one of them the recipient of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. These “representatives” screaming about “settled science,” and demanding that Kennedy bow the knee to the safety and efficacy of vaccines, should have turned the stomach of every voter. Yes, RFK, Jr. was far too polite. He was obviously trying his best to appease them, in order to be approved. Saying “I support vaccines” repeatedly made him look weak. And it wasn’t going to change anything. Every Democrat was going to vote against him regardless. I think enough RINOs will join in as well. They can’t have a Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Washington, D.C.
In what was clearly part of an orchestrated campaign, a story broke, right as RFK, Jr. was about to testify, about secret audio recordings which supposedly captured Kennedy blaming his late wife Mary Richardson for his own infidelity. Mary, by the way, became yet another unnatural death connected to the family when she was found hanged in a barn in 2012, right after she leaked her husband’s diary to the New York Post. I published explosive excerpts from RFK, Jr.’s diary in American Memory Hole, in which he accused Caroline’s husband Ed Schlossberg of being a nasty bully, and blasted the likes of Andrew Cuomo, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, among other things. I don’t know if this audio is real. If so, it became public at an extremely fortuitous time for those who wanted to stop RFK, Jr.’s nomination. Which would include the entire political establishment and state sponsored media.
Released last July was Maureen Callahan’s new book Ask Not, which is the most vicious hit piece on the Kennedy family since Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot. I talked about a few of Callahan’s articles which appeared in the New York Post in American Memory Hole. She is like an anti-Kennedy pit bull. She writes like some Kennedy male spurned her. She actually had the nerve to say her book wasn’t “partisan.” She relies on every fanciful canard, all of them emanating from either the CIA or the Mafia, in her attacks on JFK, RFK, and Teddy. But she really hates RFK, Jr. She cavalierly flings around the charge that the Kennedys “sexually assaulted” women. Who was “assaulted” by them? Maybe JFK raped Marilyn Monroe in the Lincoln Bedroom? Callahan, of course, supports the official story of all the assassinations. Her book has sold extremely well and she’s been interviewed by all the usual suspects.
Recognizing the environment RFK, Jr. was raised in makes it easier to understand his sometimes eccentric behavior. His mother Ethel wasn’t affectionate, and left the children to fend for themselves, as she played tennis and was photographed smiling with various celebrities. There were not only eleven kids, but a pack of dogs and other animals, all of whom urinated and defecated in the house. Ethel literally entertained important people while dog poop was on the floor under the dining room table. Does that explain RFK, Jr.’s obsession with roadkill? And, just for the record, Ethel lost her parents and her brother in separate plane crashes. I don’t know what that means, but again it defies every known actuarial possibility. So between them, Bobby and Ethel experienced five separate plane crashes of immediate family members. If anything close to that has happened to any family in the world, I’d like to know about it.
The post The Lynching of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appeared first on LewRockwell.
Sleepwalking Into Tyranny: How Power Is Silently Being Seized
“This is what militaries do during coups: you capture the major targets, with government buildings high on the list, and you take over communications and other systems.”—Ruth Ben-Ghiat, historian on fascism and authoritarian leaders
How something is done is just as important as why something is done.
To suggest that the ends justify the means is to launch oneself down a moral, ethical and legal rabbit hole that leaves us in a totalitarian bind.
We are already halfway down that road.
Whatever the justifications for discarding, even temporarily, the constitutional framework and protocols that have long served as the foundations for our republic (national security, an economic crisis, terrorists at the border, a global pandemic, etc.), none of them are worth the price we are being asked to pay—the rule of law—for what is amounting to a hostile takeover of the U.S. government by an oligarchic elite.
This is no longer a conversation about stolen elections, insurrections, or even the Deep State.
This has become a lesson in how quickly things can fall apart.
This is what all those years of partisan double standards and constitutional undermining and legislative sell-outs and judicial betrayals add up to: a coup by oligarchic forces intent on a hostile takeover.
The government’s past efforts to sidestep the rule of law pale in comparison to what is unfolding right now, which is nothing less than the complete dismantling of every last foundational principle for a representative government that answers to “we the people.”
This shock-and-awe blitz campaign of daily seizures, raids and overreaching executive orders is a deliberate attempt to keep us distracted and diverted while the government is remade in the image of an autocracy, one in which privacy, due process, the rule of law, free speech, and equality will all be contingent on whether you are worthy of the privilege of rights.
I have long insisted on the need to recalibrate the government, but this is not how one goes about it.
The issue is not whether the actions being taken by the Trump Administration are right or wrong—although there are many that are egregiously wrong and some that are long overdue—but whether the Executive Branch has the power to unilaterally override the Constitution.
If we allow this imperial coup to move forward without pushback or protest, we will be just as culpable as those signing the death warrant for our freedoms.
Power corrupts.
And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
However, it takes a culture of entitlement and a nation of compliant, willfully ignorant, politically divided citizens to provide the foundations of tyranny.
For too long now, America has played politics with its principles and allowed the president and his colleagues to act in violation of the rule of law.
“We the people” are paying the price for it now.
Since the early days of our republic, we have operated under the principle that no one is above the law.
As Thomas Paine observed in Common Sense, “In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
Several years later, John Adams, seeking to reinforce this important principle, declared in the Massachusetts Constitution that they were seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”
The history of our nation over the past 200-plus years has been the history of a people engaged in a constant struggle to maintain that tenuous balance between the rule of law—in our case, the United States Constitution—and the government leaders entrusted with protecting it, upholding it and abiding by it.
At various junctures, when that necessary balance has been thrown off by overreaching government bodies or overly ambitious individuals, we have found ourselves faced with a crisis of constitutional proportions.
Each time, we have taken the painful steps needed to restore our constitutional equilibrium.
That was then, this is now, and for too long now, we have failed to recognize and rectify the danger in allowing a single individual to declare himself the exception to the rule of law and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
For all intents and purposes, we have become a nation ruled not by laws but by men, and fallible, imperfect men, at that.
We allowed Bush to overstep. We allowed Obama to overstep. We allowed Trump to overstep. We allowed Biden to overstep.
These power grabs by the Trump Administration, aided and abetted by Elon Musk, are more than an overstep, however.
All of us are in danger.
Those cheering the erection of migrant camps at Guantanamo, take heed: you could be next.
It’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.
Partisan politics have no place in what is unfolding now.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So, it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
It’s happened before.
As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.
One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain “order” in the homeland.
The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.
Although that Korematsu decision was never formally overturned, Chief Justice Roberts opined in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) that “the forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority.”
Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits its purposes. Pointing out that such blatantly illegal detentions could happen again—with the blessing of the courts—Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.
Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention.
Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, nor do they seem all that concerned now. And yet in the near future we could well be the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.
Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone—ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile—they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. More than a decade later, the cops largely have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal.
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it will only be a matter of time before those brainwashed into believing that they have nothing to worry about learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.
Martin Niemöller learned that particular lesson the hard way.
A German military officer turned theologian, Niemöller was an early supporter of Hitler’s rise to power. It was only when Hitler threatened to attack the churches that Niemöller openly opposed the regime. For his efforts, Niemöller was arrested, charged with activities against the government, fined, detained, and eventually interned in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1938 to 1945.
As Niemöller reportedly replied when asked by his cellmate why he ever supported the Nazi party:
“I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me… Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews… Hitler’s assurance satisfied me at the time…I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.”
This originally appeared on The Rutherford Institute.
The post Sleepwalking Into Tyranny: How Power Is Silently Being Seized appeared first on LewRockwell.
Cashless Society Can Pose Significant Risks If You Aren’t Prepared
Aside from economic collapse scenarios, many countries are in the process of eliminating physical cash and coins. Instead, everyone has an account that holds their money. You cannot purchase goods or services without access to government-based cryptocurrency. Even if the currency itself is still backed by faith in the government, you have to use this electronic system.
The result is multiple problems that could leave you in a situation where you have the money in the bank to pay your bills and purchase goods and services, yet you cannot do so.
These threats include:
Attacks Sponsored by Foreign Governments
These hacks usually affect the bank or primary clearinghouse rather than a specific person’s account. You may be unable to purchase goods or services for hours or days. While this is inconvenient, it isn’t as bad as a full collapse, where the banks close for good.
There’s only so much you can do about this kind of hack other than make sure you can go two weeks without buying anything at any given time. It is also essential to keep a paper-based address book with phone numbers and account information so that you can contact utility companies or others who may be expecting payments from you while the bank or clearinghouse is down.
Let’s say you can connect to Wi-Fi independently of the SIM Card. Your phone app may not work with Wi-Fi. This is why I recommend having an app on your phone that doesn’t use the SIM card to dial out on Wi-Fi so that you can make the necessary calls.
Attacks Sponsored by Non-government Groups
If the hacker was able to steal money from your accounts, it could take weeks to years before you recover the money. In the short term, you will have to shut down credit cards and so on, then wait for new ones to come in the mail. You may also have to manage restoring devices and regaining access to your accounts.
Here again, make sure you can go at least 2 weeks without buying anything so that you can manage your basic necessities.
Merchant Category Codes and Social Credit Scores
Merchant Category Codes are unique identifiers that put different products into separate categories. For example, food has one set of numeric identifiers, while clothing has other identifiers.
Even without looking at your receipt, the bank and transaction clearinghouse may have some ideas about what you bought. The transaction cost can then give some estimates about quantity and item type. One day, data from all banks and clearinghouses may pool into a central government computer.
Social credit scores work like your financial-based credit scores. Consider how your financial credit score enables businesses to “reward” you with credit or better interest rates if you pay your bills on time and have an optimal debt-to-income ratio. Your social credit score looks at how you act in society. For example, China has a system that rewards things like donating blood.
This same system “punishes” people who drive drunk or engage in other activities that aren’t “beneficial to society.” People with good social credit scores may get tax breaks, an increased chance of getting a promotion, or other benefits.
When vaccines became available for COVID-19, governments worldwide were concerned because people hesitated to embrace mRNA vaccines. This led to people not complying with recommendations to get vaccinated. Social credit scores can be paired with cashless systems that will block purchasing from specific merchant category codes. It could become possible to deny people the ability to buy food, gas, and other essentials if they aren’t vaccinated.
When you can’t use cash, pressure campaigns like this will be almost 100% effective because you will have to comply or do without the necessities of life.
The only way to outlast a pressure campaign like this is to have a stockpile of food and other essentials that will last until the pressure tactics are stopped.
Moving Away From Hard Cash to Fiat Cryptocurrency
At first, you might think merchant credit codes will only come into play when the government seeks to limit, slow down, or prevent purchasing certain goods and services. The problem is that modern networks aren’t safe from hackers, including those who seek to disrupt trade for ethical reasons.
For example, the Internet Archive was recently targeted by a hacktivist group, Blackmeta. They claim they attacked this non-profit library site because it is based in the USA and, therefore, is aligned with Israeli activities. Ironically, the Internet Archive has been locked in multiple court battles with publishers that may be far more aligned with Israel. These publishers, in turn, are trying to shut down the Internet Archive because when people don’t buy from the publisher, it cuts into their profits.
Now imagine this kind of situation happening with the information stolen from the Heritage Foundation, and then used to target more granular data in banks and merchant clearinghouse systems. You could very easily see transactions declined for what appears to be “government” or other legislative curbs, when in fact, it’s some group attacking you because of a “social credit score” known only to them.
If you want to buy something right now, you can just put your credit card away and use cash. This won’t be possible once the only fiat currency available is electronic in nature. No matter how much you want to look at the potential for excess government imposition, the fact remains any group with sufficient skills and interest can cause serious problems.
The post Cashless Society Can Pose Significant Risks If You Aren’t Prepared appeared first on LewRockwell.
A Plea to Good Bishops
The last thing I’d want to be in our time is an American bishop.
The recent letter from the USCCB to President Trump, on illegal immigration, was measured in tone, nor did it fail, implicitly, to recognize the duty of those in public office to provide for the common good, taking all circumstances into account. It was greatly superior to the moral posing and preening wherein the Episcopal prelate in Washington indulged herself at the service following the inauguration, to the predictable applause of her true audience and to the hardening of the president’s opposition to anything she had to say.
And yet, who will listen? I have heard some people say that the first thing the Trump administration did for Catholics who voted for him was to betray them, giving their bishops the stiff arm. That assumes that American Catholics, as a whole, like and admire their bishops. They do not. Whether they should is another question. It also assumes that when they see a missive coming from the USCCB, they think of their own bishop. Unless their bishop is one of the most vocal of the players, they do not.
It is a thankless task to manage decline. When I was a boy, in the heady days following Vatican II, our bishop, Joseph Carroll McCormick, set about a diocesan campaign called Project: Expansion—and yes, the colon was in the phrase, as I saw on a billboard outside our town. Call it market-driven punctuation. The diocese was going to build. I don’t fault him for that. He wanted especially to build diocesan high schools, one of which I myself later attended. He did not see the disaster in store for the Church. That disaster came in several forms.
There was the sudden and calamitous collapse of the teaching orders among religious sisters. They donned a fancy feminism, which ended up ensuring that the children of the poor and the working class would never be taught within the haven of the Church. There was the revolution in sexual mores, or their near universal abandonment, which would, again, devastate the poor. It also gave the Church fewer children for the schools and fewer young men for the seminaries. Besides, sins of the flesh turn the eyes away from heavenly things, as people accept the lie that all real comforts to be had are in this world.
There was, in parish after parish, the self-inflicted wound of “renovation,” usually against the people’s wishes. I will not get into the new rite for the Mass, except to note here that it was the American bishops, or the translators they put in charge, who diluted or betrayed the prayers at Mass by excision, reduction, and distortion. Then the homosexual priests threw their party and invited many an altar boy to join in—for the sex abuse scandal was overwhelmingly homosexual. They turned many a seminary into a bathhouse, bidding, as Michael Rose puts it, goodbye to good men. We will be paying for those misdeeds for a very long time.
What’s a bishop, for an American Catholic? He’s the man who shuts down your school or the church you have attended all your life. He’s the man who imposes a year’s wait before you can get married, looking the other way if you are living already in the same house. He makes you leap bureaucratic hurdles before your children can receive First Communion. If you’ve got a parish full of people who actually believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, and who kneel to receive the sacrament or line up for Confession before Mass, the bishop is, too often, a shadowy figure to keep at bay. He provides a cover for bad priests, while taking out his frustration against the good.
As I say, much of this criticism is too harsh, and for many good but usually unrecognized bishops, it is flatly unfair, even calumnious. Now comes the Trump administration, determined to enforce immigration laws that target the eleven million people—though no one really knows the number—who are here illegally. A wide variety of considerations come into play.
First come the laws in question, passed by the people’s representatives in Congress. The bishops do not imply that these laws are unjust. If, given current circumstances, it would be a miscarriage of justice and a harm to the common good to enforce these laws after so many years of erratic enforcement or of conniving at their violation, the bishops should explain why. To set aside a law is itself a grave matter, as it gives people the sense that they are governed by caprice in the executive or in the vast and impenetrable administrative state.
Even so, the bishops may be right, that the repatriation of so many people would be a humanitarian disaster. But then they should consider other relevant circumstances: the wages of working class men, depressed by cheap labor in farming, construction, and factory work; overburdened social services in areas that can ill afford it; inequity committed against people who wish to immigrate to the United States legally; the enrichment of cartels trading in drugs and human beings; assimilation to American ways, hardly possible when you have admitted a huge class of people holding together as they must because their continued presence is uncertain and because their manner of entry has placed them in a moral and cultural contradiction.
The post A Plea to Good Bishops appeared first on LewRockwell.
Believing Is Seeing
The phrase seeing is believing is understood by most everyone I have known, including myself, as obviously true. Here is an internet explanation of the idiom:
When we hear the phrase “seeing is believing,” what comes to mind? Perhaps it brings up images of a skeptic who needs concrete evidence before they can believe something. Or maybe it makes us think of the power of visual proof in convincing others. Regardless, this idiom has become a common saying that reflects our reliance on tangible evidence.
Over time, this idea became more widespread and was adopted by various religions and cultures. For example, in Christianity, there is a famous story about doubting Thomas who refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he saw him with his own eyes. Similarly, many Eastern religions emphasize the importance of personal experience over blind faith.
The idiom “seeing is believing” also gained popularity during the Enlightenment period when science began to play a more prominent role in society. Scientists emphasized the importance of empirical evidence and observation in understanding natural phenomena.
Today, this idiom continues to be widely used and serves as a reminder that personal experience can often be more convincing than hearsay or second-hand information. It encourages people to seek out firsthand experiences and make their own judgments based on what they see rather than relying solely on what others tell them.
Over the last few years I have been receiving an internet education on cognitive science, starting from Jordan Peterson, continuing with John Vervaeke, Jonathan Pageau, and Iain McGhilchrist among others that has changed my view. There was one short video Peterson described that made a radical change in my understanding of consciousness. Take two minutes to do this attention test now before you continue reading.
Did you see it? It doesn’t matter if you did, just know that many people do not.
The cognitive scientist John Vervaeke has described relevance realisation. In short, the conscious mind has always an infinite amount of data to see. But this combinatorial explosion of data is impossible to comprehend so the brain must focus attention on a small limit, and to conceive of reality as much less granular. As a trivial example, when we see a table we do not necessarily see its parts, four legs and a top.
I have previously described the work of Iain McGilchrist and His Magnum Opus – LewRockwell on the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Here he describes what is seen by the hemispheres. The left hemisphere excludes everything that does not conform to its preconceived model of what is true. It acts as a cognitive filter. The right hemisphere is “much better at seeing the big picture.” Another valuable explanation of his theories can be found here: The Mystery of Consciousness: Dr. Iain McGilchrist’s Keynote at Kinross House (2024)
The full video linked to in the previous paragraph is titled How faith can re-enchant a left-brained world. The modern materialist model of the world that we are immersed in makes the spiritual realm impossible to see. In this conversation Jonathan Pageau discusses prayer and attention, in particular, if you pay attention to good things through prayer, life will be better.
A poignant example of the practical consequences to everyday life of the attention and filtering I have described herein are found in this internet conversation on the Youtube channel The Meaning Code. Ryan describes how his attention, his relevance realization, changed after coming out of a depression. In particular, he describes his view of his city, Dallas-Fort Worth, going from a nihilist loathing to grateful appreciation.
I am currently reading the novel Nana by Emile Zola to follow my daughter’s high school literature class. I had read Nana and other works by French realist authors such as Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, Stendahl’s Le Rouge et le Noir, and Maupassant’s Bel-Ami. I could not understand these bleak pictures of humanity. I understood there is the base and evil in people, but there was no expression of goodness in these works that I see in the world. I now believe that these authors did express the reality that they saw, but I think that their attention was fixed only on the base, such that they did not see the good.
This short explanation cannot do justice to such a broad and important topic. But I hope you will see that while seeing is believing has a certain veracity, it is more important to understand that reality is conceived such that believing is seeing.
The post Believing Is Seeing appeared first on LewRockwell.
Not a Single White Government Represents the Interests of Its White Ethnic Population
For years I have emphasized that white governments emphasize the rights of alien immigrant-invaders over the rights of ethnic citizens. This has gone so far as to violate the right to free speech if immigrant-invaders or their self-assigned protectors find the speech “offensive.” The media are not permitted to mention race and immigration status when reporting crimes. White governments, especially in England, Germany, and Scandinavia have actually turned the crime of rape into a privilege for immigrant-invaders, and there are instances where women who have reported their rape to police have been punished more severely for a “hate crime,” defined as speaking inappropriately of a darker-skinned immigrant invader, than her rapist. Indeed, as crime statistics from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark reveal, rapists, if they are immigrant-invaders, are rarely even arrested, much less punished.
I have long wondered where all the feminists went as I have never had a comment from a women about the creation of squatters’ rights for immigrant-invaders to sexual use of ethnic white females by decades of non-enforcement of the law against rape.
Having failed for years to cause with my reporting even a single small ripple–I suppose because brainwashed white people regard being called “racist” as a worse crime than rape–I welcomed the attention Elon Musk brought to the plight of white women with his denunciation of 30 years of corrupt British governments and police who remained silent while immigrant-invader rape gangs held a quarter million underaged white British girls in sexual bondage. The only people who encountered police arrests were the white parents who complained about the rape of their daughters.
What I do not understand is why is there a single member of these white governments still alive. Why hasn’t an outraged population pulled both the governments and the rape gangs the governments protect out in the streets and killed every one of them?
The answer seems to be that white people have been indoctrinated against themselves. Believing themselves to be racists, they lack the self-belief to protect themselves and their children. The few who dared to speak out have been fired from jobs, arrested and imprisoned, and called every name in the book. The political parties that have attempted to represent the white ethnic peoples have had their leaders demonized as Nazis and arrested on false indictments and imprisoned. At the moment Marine Le Pen, whose party is the largest in France but kept from office, is awaiting sentencing for a non-crime.
If you give this a moment’s thought, you will see how insane the picture is. What we see are white governments that refuse to defend their own women but are urging citizens to prepare for war with other white people in Russia. If such a war occurs, Europe will cease to exist.
How do we explain governments that refuse to hold immigrant-invaders accountable to law but are prepared to go to war with Russia based on supposition alone?
To understand how successfully whites have been turned against whites, recall some years ago when the vile and despicable Duke University administration and faculty tried to ruin the lives of the university’s Lacrosse team based on false accusations of rape by a black stripper. If the young men’s parents had not been wealthy and able to provide investigation and evidence, the young men would today be rotting in prison. As I recall, the white prosecutor knew the young men were innocent, but regarded their conviction as important to his career. As I recall, the prosecutor was fired and debarred for fraudulent prosecution. He should have been arrested and imprisoned.
Elon Musk’s denunciation of the current excrement serving as British prime minister freed up suppressed voices in England and brought to light the complicity of the British government and police in 30 years of protection of immigrant-invader rape gangs from accountability and depriving ethnic British of justice. It brought to mind my earlier reports of the freedom Scandinavian governments have given immigrant-invaders to rape without consequence Scandinavian women. I asked Hanne Herland of the famous Herland Report if she could bring me and my readers up to date on the plight of Scandinavian women. Hanne Herland is the most important journalist in Europe. Indeed, she might be the only journalist in Europe.
Hanne Herland believes that the original Marxist class antagonisms have been turned into race antagonisms, one-sided ones that pit white governments against the white ethnic citizens. I am sympathetic to this view and have often made the same point. But whatever the cause, the fact remains. White governments from failure to enforce the law have created the right for immigrant-invaders to rape white women.
Note: When Hanne Herland reports, for example, that there are 2120 rape charges per 1000 Somali immigrant-invaders in Oslo, it means that many Somalis have committed multiple offenses.
The Rape of Scandinavian Women
Hanne Nabintu Herland
Hanne Nabintu Herland is a historian of religions, author, and founder of The Herland Report. Her latest book is The Billionaire World. How Marxism Serves the Elite, available on Amazon.
It is widely known that foreign born rapists and criminals avoid accountability in Europe since political leaders are consumed with fear of being labelled “racists.” All in all, there seems to be a total lack of protection for native, white women from non-Western violent criminals.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer was recently bashed by Elon Musk and an army of X users for covering up the horrifying stories of thousands of mainly white girls being raped by mainly Muslim groups in the UK. Thanks to Elon Musk and X, these stories are now receiving world-wide attention. The lack of action against this horrible crime by European politicians and the media’s downplaying of the crisis have created a de facto property right for immigrant-invaders to white women’s bodies.
This refusal to protect the native white ethnic population is not unique to the UK, it is happening all over Europe with the perpetrators mostly non-Western and its victims almost solely indigenous, white girls.
In Norway one of the few reports that published the ethnicities of criminals, showed 100 % of assault rapes were done by immigrants. In Sweden a recent study showed 96 % of rapes were committed by immigrants. In both cases, almost exclusively native, white women were raped. In Denmark, non-Western immigrants are over 7 times more likely to commit rape than native Danes. (further details below)
Marxist-socialist indoctrination has for decades ingrained into Europeans that one should always excuse and feel sorry for non-Western immigrant invaders since they come from non-functional, often highly corrupt states in poor parts of the world. The Left has thereby implemented a multicultural discrimination against native Europeans that demands accountability for the indigenous European ethnicities in ways one would never dream of doing to a dark-skinned, non-Western immigrant. This socialist idea is the opposite of the historical Western ideal of equality regardless of race, creed or social standing. It has produced the racism against white Europeans that today permeate the European mainstream media and public discourse.
Sweden is notoriously lost to its Marxist politicians who have refused to stop the violence against its indigenous population. Here are some statistics: The country has almost sixty “no-go zones” ruled by immigrant gangs where the police are not allowed; the city of Malmø has over 50% non-Western immigrants with a higher crime rate index than Baghdad; Sweden has the highest number of bombings for a country not at war – and still its politicians do not stop it.
According to a recent study, 96 % of assault rape in Sweden are committed by foreign born immigrants and the victims are ethnic Swedish women. A 2018 investigation found that 40 out of 43 men convicted of gang rape were either immigrants or born to immigrant parents. Sweden has had the highest number of registered rape offences in Europe by a considerable extent. In 1977, Sweden had 689 rapes reported; in 2015, 18,100 sexual offenses were reported. The victims are almost solely ethnic Swedes. Still, the Swedish politicians do not stop it, and the mainstream media remains silent.
Numbers for Norway indicate that remarkably few are convicted of rape. Only one in ten reports of sexual violence are filed, and about 80 percent are simply dropped. In Sweden, out of 4,895 reported rape cases in 2017, only 190 led to convictions. In Norway, only one in ten produce a conviction. One in three women who are violently raped never even tell anyone. Statistics also show that one in five Norwegian girls under 15 are exposed to sexual violence.
An example of the ingrained racism against white ethnicities in Norway is the small number of statistical accounts that have been published on the ethnicities of perpetrators. Sweden does not publish official crime data linked to ethnicity or immigration status, neither does Norway. It is a total Scandinavian taboo to address the ethnic origin of violent criminals.
In addition, professionals seem extremely afraid of speaking out. Very few speak about the many reported suicides by white girls post-rape as their families and the girls watch how the police are reluctant to engage actively in pursuing perpetrators. It is remarkably rare to find individuals who are willing to speak about this topic publicly. As a long-term writer in the largest newspapers in Norway, I tried a few years ago to at least introduce the idea of “welcome law-abiding immigrants” versus “unwelcome criminal immigrants”. The work was completely futile, as Norwegian politicians totally follow the Marxist trend of excusing violent non-Western criminals and simply not stopping the rapes.
But there have been exceptions. Hanne Kristin Rohde, then head of the Oslo police’s violence and vice section, commented on a unique 2007 police report which actually dared to address the ethnicities of rapists. The report showed that 100% of assault rape between 2006-2008 were committed by non-Westerner immigrants, mainly men from North Africa and the Middle East. There was a 100 % increase in reported rapes that past decade. In general, immigrants from Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and Turkey have much higher crime rates than the general population, and definitely worst are those from Africa. Since the release of this report, the national Norwegian statistics have returned to not specifically showing the percentage of violently criminal foreigners.
Then, last year, the rapidly growing and now largest political party in Norway, the Libertarian Progress Party – arguably Norway’s version of Reform UK – paid for new research into the crime rate specified according to ethnicities. The statistics showed significant increase in the overrepresentation of immigrants for the period 2020-2023. Young men from Iraq and Somalia have extremely high charge rates, with over 1,200 per 1,000 for immigrants and up to 1,300 per 1,000 for Norwegian-born ethnic foreigners with parents from these countries. In Oslo, young men with an immigrant background have a charge rate of 820 per 1,000, while Norwegian-born to immigrant parents have a rate of 910 per 1,000. The rest of the population has a rate of 280 per 1,000.
“For example, for Somali men in Oslo (aged 15-24), there are 2,120 charges per 1,000 inhabitants in the period 2020-2023. This is 15 times more than the population of Oslo without an immigrant background,” writes the Progress Party: “The figures are dramatic. This shows how important it is to be open about who is behind youth crime. When the Progress Party has said that crime and immigration are linked, it has been for a reason. The fact that certain immigrant groups are so highly overrepresented is very serious and means that we probably need to have a completely different approach to the problem than we have had so far,” says party leader Sylvi Listhaug.”
The numbers for Denmark are equally depressing, revealing significant disparities based on ethnicity. Numbers from 2010–2014 indicate that non-Western immigrants are massively overrepresented among those convicted of rape compared to native Danes. While the white Danish conviction rate per 100.000 persons was 0.7, Somalis count for 25.1, Afghans for 18.1 and Iraqis for 10.4. This renders non-Western immigrants and their children to be 7.3 times more likely to commit rape than native Danes. [Remember, as reporting rape by immigrant-invaders is pointless, few rapes are reported and even fewer prosecuted. Therefore, the disproportion is much worse.]
So, there is a total lack of protection for indigenous Scandinavian women from foreign born immigrant rapists. I accuse the Marxist-socialist ideology that for so long has held Europeans hostage, with its racism against the indigenous white population in Europe, for allowing this horrifying abuse of women to continue year after year.
References:
4 Joakim P. Jonasson has published a so-called citizen study of sexual crimes in Sweden in the years 2012-2017. https://www.lykten.no/utenriks/sjokkstudie-nittiseks-prosent-overfallsvoldtekter-begas-innvandrere/
5 https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Malmo
6 Joakim P. Jonasson has published a so-called citizen study of sexual crimes in Sweden in the years 2012-2017. https://www.lykten.no/utenriks/sjokkstudie-nittiseks-prosent-overfallsvoldtekter-begas-innvandrere/
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008713631586
9 http://avpixlat.info/2016/09/28/redan-1978-stod-det-klart-vilka-som-valdtog/#more-185109
11 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-crime-rape-law-trfn-idUSKBN23T2R3/
12 https://www.bufdir.no/statistikk-og-analyse/vold-mot-barn/seksuelle-overgrep/
Og https://amnesty.no/5-fakta-om-voldtekt
Og https://www.nkvts.no/aktuelt/hoy-forekomst-av-vold-og-overgrep-i-norge/
13 https://www.ark.no/produkt/boker/dokumentar-og-faktaboker/omkamp-9788293835110
14 https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/jente-14-tok-sitt-eget-liv-etter-voldtekt/s/12-95-3168743
15 https://www.tk.no/vi-ma-snakke-om-voldtekt/o/5-51-1502007
17 https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/K3777/det-er-rasisme-aa-synes-synd-paa-moerkhudede
18 https://hannenabintuherland.com/europa/aftenposten-det-er-rasisme-a-synes-synd-pa-morkhudede/
19 https://hannenabintuherland.com/europa/vestlige-kvinners-feministiske-nederlag/
21 https://www.politiet.no/om-politiet/tall-og-fakta/voldtekt-og-seksuelle-overgrep–statistikk/
22 https://www.nrk.no/norge/voldtektsmenn-er-ikke-vestlige-1.6567955
23 https://www.nrk.no/norge/voldtektsmenn-er-ikke-vestlige-1.6567955
24 https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/eK3oy/innvandrere-bak-alle-anmeldte-overfallsvoldtekter-i-oslo
25 https://www.reformparty.uk/
27 https://inyheter.no/09/12/2024/alarmerende-tall-fra-ssb/
29 https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183784
The post Not a Single White Government Represents the Interests of Its White Ethnic Population appeared first on LewRockwell.
Fight For Formosa or Not?
[Editor’s note: This article first appeared in the May/June 1955 issue of Faith and Freedom under Rothbard’s pseudonym, Aubrey Herbert. Rothbard is responding to an article by the Buckleyite conservative Willi Schlamm who advocates for military intervention against China. The Schlamm article is printed in full at the bottom of this page. Rothbard, of course, takes the opposite view of Schlamm, condemning preventive war, conscription, and Schlamm’s apparent desire to immediately resort to full-blown war. (Thanks to Joseph Solis-Mullen for finding and transcribing these articles.)]
The publication of Mr. Schlamm’s criticism is, I believe, a healthy development. For it reflects a deep-rooted split within the libertarian camp that badly needs airing and debate. It is a split on the most important tissue of our time: war or peace.
The core of Mr. Schlamm’s case rests on this dilemma: that we are faced with the terrible alternative of war or martyrdom. Either we must fight an alphabet-bomb war or we must bare our breasts to the advancing Red hordes. There is no other choice. The trouble with this simple alternative rests on an equally simple fact that Mr. Schlamm somehow overlooks: we haven’t been attacked.
Perhaps Mr. Schlamm believes that a Soviet or Chinese attack on New York or San Francisco is imminent. But unless he can prove that Soviet bombers have already begun their flight, he is actually advocating preventive war. “Preventive war” is the death-trap formula that has started wars throughout history. We must give thanks that the Soviets have not succumbed to the preventive war ideology.
But, Mr. Schlamm will say, the Communists “want the world.” Sure they do. No one denies this and no one denies that they are earnest and dedicated men. But what does this prove? Many people and many groups would like to run the world if given half a chance. The point is not what the Communists would like to do; the point is what they rationally can do.
What can the Russians or the Chinese do to us? Two facts should be clear. On the one hand, they could pulverize us with alphabet bombs and germ warfare, but at the certainty of being pulverized even more thoroughly themselves. On the other hand, they could not possibly invade and occupy the United States. Most military men will support these opinions. It should be obvious that we can be badly damaged, but only from the air.
It follows that the rational policy for Communists is to avoid any military attack on the United States. Only irrational leaders would want to destroy themselves and their subjects for the sake of destroying others.
As Philip Wylie said, “the Russians are as patient as an oyster making pearls.” They are quick tempered, and so far have shown more cunning than recklessness. Indeed, the foremost plank of Soviet foreign policy has always been defense, defense of the Socialist Motherland. Russia has never engaged in reckless warfare that might endanger the Homeland of Communism. Other countries might profit from her example!
The Communists are reinforced in their caution and rationality by their very dedication. For they are dedicated to Marxist-Leninist theory, which tells them that the coming of world communism is inevitable. Communist theory ordains that the workers of capitalist countries are bound to become Communists, revolt, and establish the millennium. Buoyed up by this “knowledge,” the Communists would be madmen indeed to risk self-destruction through modern total war.
Mr. Schlamm writes confidently about a “reasonable chance of victory.” What kind of “victory”? And victory for what? A “victory” with civilization destroyed irrevocably by alphabet bombs, germ warfare and other scientific horrors? A “victory” where the few Americans left alive are happy in the knowledge that a few less Russians and Chinese are left alive? Of course, I agree with Mr. Schlamm that all wars are bad, even wars fought with bows and arrows. But does he really see no difference between the unfortunate death of a few soldiers, and the total destruction of human civilization?
The facts of modern total war have also the following consequence: in days of old, those warlike fellows who thirsted for a showdown with the knight in the neighboring castle, could have their showdown without injuring the lives of civilians who wished to remain in peace.
But as war grows more terrible and more total, the consequence of war is the mass annihilation of countless millions who only wished to remain in peace. In the H-bomb age, the fellow who wishes to precipitate “showdowns” is bound to precipitate destruction of the millions of peaceful and innocent.
And this is precisely the point of the statement by the editors of Faith and Freedom in the March issue (page 21) that “Anyone who wants to aid Formosa by contributions or volunteering should be free to do so.” Precisely. General Chennault has called for American volunteers for a new edition of his Flying Tigers in the Formosan Air Force. I am happy to second this call, and to urge all the advocates of anti-Communist global crusading to join up. They would then be living according to their own principles.
In this connection, I am puzzled by Mr. Schlamm’s reasoning about conscription. I for one am against conscription any place, anywhere, anytime. I have never understood how anyone, much less any libertarian, could support the thesis that a man must be forced at gunpoint to defend himself or to defend someone else—and defend against what? Against being forced to do something at gunpoint!
A word about “isolationism.” Mr. Schlamm may be right when he says that many people upheld isolationism in 1940 on a narrow, balance-of-power basis. But some of us at least were isolationists on the grounds of high libertarian principle. “Isolationism” stands as a permanent principle, even though largely forgotten in the present-day world. It has never been better expounded than in the works of that great English libertarian Richard Cobden, and by such fellow spirits as John Bright and Sydney Smith.
I have for a long time been puzzled, incidentally, by the haste and impetuosity of the conservative-interventionists’ desire for a showdown. Why do all of them implicitly believe that time is on the side of communism? What can Mr. Schlamm mean when he says that communism is an “inherently expanding totalitarianism”? In human action there is no such thing as “inherent expansion”; there are only people who may or may not will such expansion.
In other words, why has communism expanded so much in recent years? There are only two possible explanations: (1) the rule of communism is being imposed by a minority onto a hostile anti-Communist populace; (2) the vast majority of the people in the Communist countries want communism. If the first is correct, then time is on our side and Mr. Schlamm has nothing to worry about. No rule can continue very long without at least passive support from the majority of productive people.
If the second possibility is true, then Mr. Schlamm proposes that we try to prevent people who want communism from getting it. I submit that this is an impossible and absurd task. Furthermore, if one is a libertarian he must believe that communism is a grossly inefficient economic system, and therefore that time is on the side of a free economy and its superior productive strength. The libertarian who understands economics faces a future of peace and competition with Communist systems in high confidence, and not in fear and recklessness.
Finally, Mr. Schlamm and the host of others who think as he does essentially conceive of communism as The Enemy. But the enemy is not Russian Communism, but communism, generic communism—the invasion of our liberties by the State. What matters whether tyrants wear brown shirts or green, whether they are earthy proletarians who sip tea at night, or striped-pants men with Harvard accents? In the domestic sphere, all libertarians are wise enough to reject the myth that we must give up freedom to obtain a spurious security. Must we, in the field of foreign policy, be more absurd and give up our freedom in order to “preserve” that freedom? What better example of the Hegelian-Orwellian dialectic: war is peace, freedom is slavery!
William Schlamm:
This time, with the editor’s gallant permission, I should like to discuss certain disturbing undercurrents in Faith and Freedom itself—undercurrent of an ill-tempered self-righteousness and a readiness to misrepresent the position of honorable men. I am referring, of course, to Faith and Freedom’s recent statements on our Formosa policy. And I concede that the enormity of the decisions involved could upset the emotional balance even of conscientious men. But Faith and Freedom operates under a very special covenant with truth; if even such a journal were allowed to claim dispensation from conscience, just because an issue is charged with a special historic weight, all would be lost. So I protest. I protest in the name of faith and of freedom and of all the supreme values that have bound us together in this venture.
What is the issue? The editors have stated it concisely in March, on page 21: “The trouble in the Formosa strait is forcing us to face up to the fact of life: there are bad men in the world…And we can’t get away from it, appease though we may. Wrong-doing will persist in its course until it lands on our doorstep. That is really what this is all about.” Indeed. And why don’t the editors tell their Washington correspondent? For this is what he wrote in March, on page 18: “Now why should the ‘liberals,’ who spent so much time trying to discredit Chiang, now want us to go to war to defend Chiang? The answer appears to be that war will bring on socialism faster than peace.”
What this answer appears to be is primarily spurious. And the editors knew this. For they noticed on page 20 of the same issue: “The Nation, long in the vanguard of the political left, suggests we give in to Red China. ‘If we want peace we must be prepared to pay the price for it. It is small enough weighted against the risks of our present policy.’”
In demonstrable truth, of course, there is not a “liberal” who would not agree with Aubrey Herbert’s [Rothbard’s] article in your March issue; and it is perfectly impossible that your well-read Mr. Herbert was not aware of this. Which does not necessarily mean that his position must be wrong; for sometimes even “liberals” and Socialists are right. But it means that your Washington correspondent, just to win a point in a stacked debate, was prepared to misrepresent the position of honorable men who, with the editors of Faith and Freedom, are facing up to the fact of life.
What are these facts? For one, do we agree that the Communists are in deadly earnest? They want the world; and they will settle for nothing less. If they can get the world without war, they will rejoice; if they must fight a war to get the world, they will fight a war. It’s that simple. The ultimate decisions of dedicated men have always been that simple. And the Communists are dedicated men. Yes, it is a profound tragedy of existence in history that Satan, too, can command man’s deepest devotions. (And the catastrophic climax of history may have been reached when all devotion aggregates on Satan’s side, while the professed soldiers of God drape their devotional exhaustion with lukewarm gentility.)
Another irrefutable fact is that the sinful horror of war—and not just atomic war. I have no sympathy, and can find no spiritual justification, for those whose conscience can robustly stand old-fashioned “glycerine bombs” but not the inflationary atomic effect. In moral arithmetic, the sum total of all conceivable human pain equals the pain a single human being can suffer. The rest is but the projected selfishness of modern man whose actuarial chances seem reduced in the tabulations of atomic warfare. In the face of the inherent sinfulness of war, man’s distressed conscience stands all alone. No one and nothing can help him but his faith. If his faith instructs him that serious evil must be resisted with dying and killing, he will kill and die in peace with his God. If his faith instructs him that he must accept the temporal triumph of evil, rather than kill, he will face the martyrdom of the defeated in peace with his conscience
But (and this is the third irrefutable fact) the choice is not between the horrors of war and the pleasures of peace. It is between the possible sin of violent resistance and the certain martyrdom of nonviolence. Both choices are terrifying, both are morally and rationally permissible. But morally and rationally un-permissible, it seems to me, is to sell nonviolence, not as the acceptance of fearsome martyrdom that it is, but as a practical policy of comfort. And this is precisely what Mr. Herbert, in seeking a privileged sanctuary behind the great MacArthur, is trying to do.
The admirable General, or so it seems to me, owes us an explanation what exactly he had in mind when he announced that “both sides can be trusted (with renouncing war) when both do profit.” Our side, presumably, would profit from an extension of its franchise to go on being what it is; namely, a free and comfortable society that minds its own business. By the same token, communism would profit from being uninhibitedly what it is; namely, an inherently expanding totalitarianism that minds our business. Until General MacArthur spoke up, there existed universal consensus that, because of the very nature of communism, the only feasible check on its rapacious forays was America’s believable readiness to use superior force against the further spread of communism. Once the use of force is renounced, only the miraculous conversion of the Communist strategists would stand between them and world conquest. Divine grace, to be sure, is infinite, and that conversion may happen. But if it is this what the General advised us to bet on, he should have said so. It would have been magnificent for an old soldier to return his professional license to his Maker (though there exist serious theological doubts whether the Lord can be deputized for strategic jobs). If, however, he had another stratagem in mind, he should have taken us into his confidence. Unless and until he does, his promise that “both sides will profit” is but another futile exercise in squaring the circle. And yet, with no other proof on hand than a MacArthur quotation, Mr. Herbert presents those who, with the unreformed General MacArthur, believe that there is no substitute for victory, as one part interventionist knaves and one part socialistic fools. Senator Knowland (and those who, as I do, think him right) might be wrong. But the fools-and-knaves pitch against them is singularly unconvincing.
Nor would I advise you, dear editor, to bring out the fading strait jacket of “isolationism versus interventionism.” The natively isolationist American position of 1941 was altogether practical and rational; for it then could certainly be argued that a well-armed U.S. had little to fear from a totalitarian Germany that was locked in a fight-to-death with totalitarian Russia. But to speak of isolationism (or interventionism) makes sense only so long as there exists a reasonable doubt about the global intentions and the global prowess of the aggressive power. Do you, dear editor, have any such doubts in 1955? Has anybody?
If not, we all had better return, responsibly, to the alpha and omega of the tragic debate: are we to resist Communist expansion with military force, while reasonable men can still see a reasonable chance of victory; or do we prefer the martyrdom of surrender to sinful violence? And it will not serve our soul-searching to divert us to the peripheral problems of conscription, either. If military conscription is morally intolerable, it is just as intolerable in defense of California as in defense of Formosa. If, on the other hand, you are prepared to grant the Federal Government the right to draft my sluggish fellow-Vermonters for the defense of your obnoxious Wilshire Boulevard, you have implicitly conceded its right to draft them for the defense of any other spot that is vital to the survival of the U.S. The only relevant question then is the moral (and military) relevance of that spot.
To this question you will have to find a better answer than Mr. Herbert’s. Perhaps you will never find it. But in your search, I implore you, do not forfeit your franchise of truth for the comforts of self-righteous dialectics!
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.The post Fight For Formosa or Not? appeared first on LewRockwell.
How Are Inflammation & Infection Connected?
Every other week Drs Sam and Mark Bailey spend an hour and answer health related questions sent in by their member viewers.
Since 2022 they’ve answered over 500 questions that you can easily look up and view – via a constantly updated Index they provide.
PLUS, most of their answers include links to sources they recommend where viewers can learn even more about these discussions.
As such they’ve created an invaluable health resource everyone should know about.
This past Tuesday, February 4, 2025, they were asked to comment on how Inflammation and Infection are connected, something that has confused many people – and all of Western Medicine – for a very long time.
Their succinct answer will enlighten you while it also presents how Germ Theory has created this confusion.
I asked Sam to create this segment so I could share it with you. She graciously agreed.
Please watch this excellent 6 minute video, HERE.
And, please share it with everyone you care about.
The post How Are Inflammation & Infection Connected? appeared first on LewRockwell.
NTSB: Conflicting Altimeter Data Retrieved After Midair Collision Near Washington
Writes Gail Appel:
Once again, Crew Deep State Cover Up is dredged up from the Swamp to spread its slime.
See here.
The post NTSB: Conflicting Altimeter Data Retrieved After Midair Collision Near Washington appeared first on LewRockwell.
Chuck
Writes Gail Appel:
Sleepy Chuck Todd from his basement today: Elon Musk is destroying America’s faith in our trusted Intelligence Community”
Can’t make it up. The Dimms have learned nothing. Trump was elected BECAUSE America has lost faith in America’s Intel Community and the entirety of government.
They’re screaming about cutting foreign aid after it’s been exposed as unbelievably corrupt. By saying”Nobody voted for this. Not a single Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or vegetarian. The American people get to decide and they unanimously support foreign aid and all the good it does”
I don’t recall ever having been asked, have long felt it should be curtailed and as of a year or so ago , believed it should have been ended. And that was before this disgusting , demoralizing and dangerously demeaning filth was exposed. Yet the Dimms are doubling down on demonic dementia.
And if not insulting enough, Ilhan Omar out there screaming that this is “un-American”! This piece of garbage shilling for Turkey, Iran and Al Qaeda , who called America “ less than garbage” and people were up in arms about 9/1- because “ Some people did something”.
I wish a giant sinkhole would open and suck them into them. bowels of the Earth.All of them. Better still , vaporize them. And their donors, the UN, WEF, WHO and every tentacle.
The post Chuck appeared first on LewRockwell.
Germany ready to deploy troops to Greenland
Thanks, Rick Rozoff.
The post Germany ready to deploy troops to Greenland appeared first on LewRockwell.
Wait…We’re Taking Over Gaza?
The post Wait…We’re Taking Over Gaza? appeared first on LewRockwell.
Trump and Gaza
Writes a friend:
Lew:
What Trump is potentially planning to do with the Palestinian population in Gaza is insane, criminal and against all geopolitical norms since the end of World War II.
The cowardly Congress won’t do anything to stop him, but when the Congress flips to the Democrats during the next mid-terms, and it’s highly likely to do, you can bet the farm that new articles of impeachment will be filed against him by nearly all the Democrats and a good many Republicans.
He promised to end wars, not start World War III.
The post Trump and Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.
Murray Rothbard on the Generational Neocon Pipe Dream of War with China
First published in 1955, but could have been last week if the names were changed.
The post Murray Rothbard on the Generational Neocon Pipe Dream of War with China appeared first on LewRockwell.
50 Classical Music Masterpieces for Relaxation & the Soul
Thanks, Maureen McKerracher.
The post 50 Classical Music Masterpieces for Relaxation & the Soul appeared first on LewRockwell.
Libertà di parola in America & censura europea
Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9
Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/liberta-di-parola-in-america-and)
• Ciò che conta è la solidarietà che si sta creando tra le principali piattaforme di social media statunitensi e la nuova amministrazione statunitense a sostegno della libertà di espressione.
• La nuova amministrazione statunitense non tollererà che un'Unione Europea, la quale sta scivolando verso l'autoritarismo e che allo stesso tempo dipende più che mai dal potere americano, imponga multe da decine di miliardi di dollari alle principali aziende tecnologiche americane.
• Sarebbe nell'interesse duraturo dell'Europa prepararsi al ritorno di una libertà di espressione senza restrizioni.
Chiunque voglia valutare la portata della deriva normativa dell'Unione Europea deve leggere gli articoli 34 e 35 del Digital Services Act (DSA).
Data la loro lunghezza è impossibile citarli integralmente qui, quindi ecco un estratto.
Articolo 34 del DSA, “Valutazione del rischio”:
1. Le piattaforme online di grandissime dimensioni e i motori di ricerca online di grandissime dimensioni identificano, analizzano e valutano diligentemente tutti i rischi sistemici nell'UE derivanti dalla progettazione o dal funzionamento del loro servizio e dei relativi sistemi, compresi i sistemi algoritmici [...] e includono i seguenti rischi sistemici [...] (a) la diffusione di contenuti illegali tramite i loro servizi (i quali includono “incitamento all'odio”); (b) tutti gli effetti negativi, reali o prevedibili, sull'esercizio dei diritti fondamentali, in particolare i diritti [...] alla non discriminazione; (c) tutti gli effetti negativi, reali o prevedibili, sul dibattito civico e sui processi elettorali, nonché sulla sicurezza pubblica; (d) tutti gli effetti negativi, reali o prevedibili in relazione [...] alla salute pubblica [...] e gravi conseguenze negative per il benessere fisico e mentale della persona [...].L'articolo 35, “Mitigazione dei rischi”, obbliga queste piattaforme ad adottare un intero arsenale di misure preventive e repressive per impedire la condivisione di informazioni che scontentano la Commissione europea.
In breve, l'idea è di costringere queste piattaforme a pagare orde di funzionari pubblici per dare la caccia alle opinioni che non piacciono al Padrone europeo. La natura preventiva di queste misure significa che possono essere descritte come censura, perché i termini usati dal legislatore europeo — odio, non discriminazione, discorso civico, processo elettorale, sicurezza pubblica, salute pubblica, benessere — sono talmente vaghi che i censori con le forbici (digitali) tagliano dove vogliono, a capriccio del Padrone europeo.
Nel frattempo, negli Stati Uniti...
Elon Musk non ha mai nascosto la sua adesione al concetto americano di libertà di espressione, secondo cui essa è indipendente da quanto stabilito dalla legge.
Al contrario, secondo la Convenzione europea sui diritti dell'uomo, l'espressione è libera con eccezioni legali. Per molto tempo queste eccezioni sono state rare, con il risultato che l'espressione è rimasta quasi libera in Europa come negli Stati Uniti. Negli ultimi 30 anni, tuttavia, queste eccezioni europee alla libera espressione si sono moltiplicate (odio, discriminazione, razzismo, islamofobia, transfobia e così via) al punto che i cittadini europei, compresi quelli nel Regno Unito, vengono ora arrestati, processati e imprigionati per aver espresso idee inappropriate su Facebook, X e altri social media.
Ma allora, potreste chiedervi, perché i due concetti di espressione — libera negli Stati Uniti, censurata in Europa — non possono coesistere, ciascuno a modo suo, nei rispettivi continenti?
Il problema è che l'Unione Europea ha una concezione imperialista della sua regolamentazione. L'UE non regola l'Europa; vuole regolare il mondo. Fedele alle tradizioni giurisprudenziali tedesca e francese, l'UE si vede come una sorta di modello legislativo per il pianeta. Non solo sta prendendo l'iniziativa di regolamentare settori che prima non erano regolamentati, ma sembra anche aspettarsi che il resto del mondo segua l'esempio.
L'UE sta sostenendo le sue normative globali con sanzioni altrettanto globali. Apple è stata di recente colpita da una multa dell'antitrust europeo da $2 miliardi. Le violazioni del Digital Services Act (DSA) sono punibili con sanzioni calcolate in percentuale dei ricavi — quindi non più dei profitti — in tutto il mondo. Nel caso di aziende come Meta (Facebook) o X, stiamo parlando di multe che ammontano a miliardi di dollari. Dal momento che non sono in grado di innovare, gli europei tassano gli americani.
Tutte le “grandi piattaforme” che l'Unione Europea sta regolamentando con imperiale alterigia sono in realtà americane, pertanto nessuna di esse è soggetta all'UE. Come osserva l'esperto di tecnologia, Jason Oxman , “l'UE [è] diventata tanto sterile nell'innovazione quanto fertile nella regolamentazione”.
Ciò mette l'UE e il suo DSA in rotta di collisione con la nuova amministrazione Trump. Con incredibile ingenuità, l'8 gennaio i media tedeschi hanno chiesto che le sanzioni del DSA venissero applicate a X e a Meta (Facebook).
La notizia principale del 7 gennaio è stata il dietrofront, almeno per ora, di Mark Zuckerberg e del suo Facebook/Instagram e l'abbraccio del concetto muskiano di libertà di parola, più o meno come sancito dalla Costituzione degli Stati Uniti. Che questo sostegno sia o meno egoistico è irrilevante. Ciò che conta è la solidarietà che si sta forgiando tra i principali social media statunitensi e la nuova amministrazione statunitense a sostegno della libertà di espressione.
Di conseguenza o la libertà di parola americana si imporrà all'Europa, o, cosa meno probabile — a meno che gli europei non mostrino un improvviso desiderio di tirannia — l'Europa imporrà la sua concezione alle piattaforme americane. Non può esserci coesistenza dei due concetti. Se l'UE avesse legiferato solo per l'Europa e avesse previsto sanzioni locali, i due concetti avrebbero potuto coesistere. L'arroganza della visione dell'UE di sanzioni globali rende improbabile questa coesistenza.
Il re europeo è nudo
Una previsione: la libertà di parola americana vincerà. L'Europa è debole e l'UE come burocrazia è sempre più odiata dagli europei, e non senza valide ragioni. Senza la NATO l'Europa non esisterebbe militarmente. Senza garanzie di sicurezza americane, l'Europa può prepararsi al ritorno delle truppe russe a Berlino. Soprattutto, l'Europa esporta più negli Stati Uniti di quanto importi. Nel 2022 il commercio di beni e servizi tra gli Stati Uniti e l'Unione Europea ha totalizzato circa $1.300 miliardi. Le esportazioni statunitensi ammontavano a $592 miliardi e le importazioni a $723,3 miliardi, come Trump ci ricorda in ogni sua conferenza stampa.
La nuova amministrazione statunitense non tollererà l'imposizione di multe da decine di miliardi di dollari alle principali aziende tecnologiche statunitensi da parte di un'UE che sta scivolando verso l'autoritarismo e che allo stesso tempo è più che mai dipendente dal potere americano. Per immaginare il contrario, bisognerebbe essere stupidi come un burocrate tedesco.
Sarebbe nell'interesse duraturo dell'Europa prepararsi al ritorno di una libertà di espressione senza restrizioni.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/
Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una “mancia” in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.
Does Anyone Remember the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway of the Bush Regime Era of Which Ron Paul Warned Us?
With the dramatic, impactful executive orders and policy statements of the newly installed President Donald Trump regarding international trade, tariffs, and defense of American sovereignty as contingent components of an America First foreign policy of peace and diplomacy based upon a non-interventionist foreign policy structured upon a strong national defense of the political and territorial integrity of the United States, coupled with a policy of strategic disengagement in world affairs. National borders defended by the highest state of the art technology and physical security.
He is seeking to eliminate participation in the multitude of multilateral and bilateral, inflationary paper money schemes such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the Export-Import Bank used to finance totalitarianism abroad, while impoverishing Americans in catastrophic debt.
Therefore, I ask if anyone has forgotten the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighways of the Bush regime era of which Ron Paul warned us?
https://www.peaktraffic.org/nafta.html
This is an economic and political continental union of Canada, Mexico and the United States, the three largest and most populous countries in North America. The concept is loosely based on the European Union, including a common currency called the “amero” or the North American Dollar, comparable to the euro of the European Union (EU). It is a concerted assault upon our national sovereignty and independence, an insidious covert coup against our Constitution and our rights and liberties.
It is a negotiated convergence of these former independent nation-states into a collectivist globalist entity.
During this time, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was formed. It was described by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States as a dialogue to provide greater cooperation on security and economic issues.
In 2005, claims emerged from critics of North American integration that a “North American Union” was not only being planned, but was being implemented by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. These critics cited the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and claimed it was an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures, a critique heightened by the subsequent publication of the Independent Task Force on North America report which praised the SPP initiative and called for greater economic integration by 2010.
Building a North American Community (the Council on Foreign Relations)
https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/PDF%20posted%20on%20web–English.pdf
Building a North American Community Task Force Report (the Council on Foreign Relations)
https://www.cfr.org/report/building-north-american-community
Creating a North American Community: Chairmen’s Statement from an Independent Task Force on the Future of North America
https://www.cfr.org/event/creating-north-american-community-chairmens-statement-independent-task-force-future-north
What is the present status of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway?
The post Does Anyone Remember the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway of the Bush Regime Era of Which Ron Paul Warned Us? appeared first on LewRockwell.
What They Don’t Tell You About Anxiety and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines
Many consider anxiety to be the disease of the modern age. It is thus one of the most significant disease markets in America (e.g., from 2001-2004, approximately 19.1% of American adults had an anxiety disorder. In 2007, 36.8 billion was spent on medical care for anxiety and mood disorders). Yet despite spending billions on anxiety, rather than be appropriately addressed (like many other industries that depend upon the perpetuation of the problem they “solve”), it has only increased.
Note: a recent survey found slightly over half of young adults (18-26) now suffer from anxiety, 43% have panic attacks, a third take anxiety medications, 54% found they became worse in 2023, and 26% of them were diagnosed with a new mental health condition due to COVID-19.
All of this suggests we may not be utilizing the best approach to deal with anxiety—particularly since the drugs used to treat it are some of the most problematic ones on the market.
The GABA System
Human physiology relies upon competing systems present at many different scales, which collectively hold the body in a state of equilibrium. Most pharmaceutical drugs, in turn, alter some of those regulating systems (typically by activating or inhibiting an enzyme or receptor) so the body can be shifted to a baseline deemed necessary for health. On one hand, this is an effective approach as it allows small doses of a therapeutic to rapidly exert change throughout the body. However, it frequently leads to a significant number of problems as:
•Drugs will often affect other systems besides their target (due to the significant similarity between many proteins in the body).
•Each of those regulatory systems often interacts with a wide range of things in the body, so if you stimulate or inhibit one, it can create a variety of unintended consequences.
•One of the ways the body regulates itself is by reducing overactive receptors and increasing under-active ones. Because of this, if a drug targets a specific receptor, a tolerance to it will often develop (as the receptor becomes harder to activate), which can require more of the drug to be administered as time progresses or withdrawals to trigger when it stops.
This final point is particularly consequential for drugs that affect the nervous system, as they rely upon a variety of stimulating and inhibiting processes, so artificially triggering either of those can subsequently cause withdrawals and hence create addictions.
Note: hooking people on neurologically addictive drugs has long been one of the most reliable business models, and in addition to being done by criminals, at many times was done by the state (e.g., consider England’s opium wars against China) or pharmaceutical companies (e.g., with heroin, cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamine in the early 1900s or more recently with synthetic opioids). When you review these cases, the drug dealer will frequently insist their product is safe and not addictive but typically will eventually be forced to stop selling it once too much social harm is created by their business model (e.g., the current opioid crisis).
Human neurology works by having nerve cells (neurons) connected to each other in a complex lattice that are continually giving signals to other neurons either to fire or not fire, with each neuron being calibrated to fire once it receives a sufficient stimulatory input. This is a beautiful system that makes much of life possible, but when it goes awry, a significant number of debilitating medical disorders emerge.
Within the brain, the most common inhibitory neurotransmitter is Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA), which works by changing the flow of chloride ions in and out of neurons. In turn, a large number of psychoactive drugs (particularly calming or sedating drugs) target the GABA system. Many of these (e.g., alcohol, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines), rather than directly activating GABA receptors, function by enhancing the effect GABA within the brain will have on GABA receptors. As you might expect, like alcohol, GABA drugs can often be highly addictive.
Note: unlike drugs that target the GABA system, supplements that simply contain GABA are not considered to be addictive. That said, I have seen a few very sensitive patients develop the withdrawals seen with GABA drugs after using liposomal GABA (a more potent preparation of GABA).
The History of Benzodiazepines
The first barbiturate used for medical purposes, barbital, was discovered in 1903, and once recognized to be an effective sedative, was quickly marketed (as Veronal). Following Veronal’s success, various modifications were explored, and in 1912, phenobarbital was discovered and marketed to the world (as Luminal) and rapidly adopted by the medical system (after which many other barbiturates were brought to market).
The popularity of barbiturates arose from the fact they could treat anxiety, insomnia, epilepsy, and mania and sedate patients for anesthesia—all of which were extremely useful in medical practice, especially since the available pharmacologic treatments were much more limited at the time.
Note: barbiturates were also sometimes used to treat tremors, reduce pain, and for narcoanalysis (a form of hypnotic psychotherapy).
Because of this, barbiturates became very popular (e.g., this chart shows how much were produced just in the United States).
Unfortunately, from the start, it was clear the drugs had significant issues such as being highly addictive, impairing cognition or respiration, and repeatedly causing fatal overdoses (e.g., of Marilyn Monroe—arguably the most famous actress in history), so increasing concerns developed over its long-term use to manage permanent conditions like anxiety.
Barbiturate Deaths in England and Wales
Within a year of the first barbiturate hitting the market, reports emerged in the medical literature of the addictive nature of barbiturates (e.g., “the Veronal habit”), but it was not until half a century later in the 1950s, that reliable evidence emerged that they were addictive. Proposals were made to have them be available by prescription only, and it took until the 1970s for laws to be introduced to treat them as a controlled substance with restricted prescribing rules. For context, in 1962, Kennedy’s commission estimated that as many as 250,000 Americans were addicted to barbiturates, while in England in 1965 it was estimated that there were 135,000 barbiturate addicts.
Note: in more recent times, other serious side effects with phenobarbital have been recognized, such as severe withdrawals when discontinued abruptly or liver damage and increased risk of certain cancers with long-term use.
When significant concerns exist about a lucrative technology, I typically find they are ignored until a viable replacement can be found. For instance, recently I discussed how the Obstetrics field routinely gave X-rays to pregnant women despite 50 years of warnings it endangered the fetus and only acknowledged those dangers once a viable alternative (prenatal ultrasounds—something which also has safety issues) became available.
In the case of barbiturates, recognizing the immense profitability of sedative medications, many attempted to produce other viable products. As it happened, one researcher at Roche was particularly drawn to this, and spent years searching for viable alternatives even after being ordered to stop and devote his time elsewhere. Eventually, in 1956, he discovered the first benzodiazepine, and Roche quickly recognized it (Librium) would be a blockbuster (which led to Roche funding one of the largest clinical trials in history for it).
Out of the 20,000 patients Roche tested, 1,163 patients (those who did not show signs of addiction or tolerance) were then selected to be presented to the FDA. As you might expect, these dramatic results quickly won a 1960 FDA approval, and before long, the more dangerous barbiturates (which were easier to accidentally overdose on) were displaced.
Roche, in turn, claimed Librium was an effective treatment for all types of anxiety and that it could be used as a muscle relaxant, for seizures, sedation, depression, and alcohol withdrawals. As it happened in 1960, Max Hamilton developed a scale to measure depression (and another to measure anxiety), which to this day are frequently used to evaluate those disorders. Since that scale transformed anxiety into an “objective” disorder with a scientific basis, Roche immediately recognized its value and distributed it to tens of thousands of doctors so they could diagnose and then “treat” anxiety.
Likewise, Roche hired Arthur Sackler to launch an expensive campaign to promote Librium which included:
•Convincing newspapers around the country to publish friendly stories highlighting the most remarkable trial results for Librium and suggesting it was a breakthrough drug that would transform medicine (thereby bypassing existing advertising regulations).
•Placing magazines with those stories in doctor’s offices nationwide (again bypassing advertising regulations).
•Aggressively targeting women’s magazines (as Sackler suspected women would be a larger market).
•Aggressively targeting doctors to both convince them Librium (unlike barbiturates) was “safe” and that anxiety (an almost unlimited market) needed to be treated.
•Specifically targeting general practitioners (as they were unlikely to recognize the dangers of Librium) rather than psychiatrists (who already had significant familiarity with the sedative medications and served a much smaller patient population).
In turn, this deceptive campaign (and the subsequent 1963 one for Valium) were remarkably successful.
Physicians wrote 1.5 million Librium prescriptions in its first month of sales. It was dispensed for alleviating anxieties and phobias, as well as illnesses then thought to have a link to stress, including high blood pressure, ulcers, acne, muscle pain, and headaches. It was not public knowledge then, but even John Kennedy—wracked by lower back pain from his wartime injury—took Librium.
In the mid-to-late 1970s, benzodiazepines topped all “most frequently prescribed” lists. By the 1980s, clinicians’ earlier enthusiasm and propensity to prescribe created a new concern: the specter of abuse and dependence. As information about benzodiazepines, both raising and damning, accumulated, medical leaders and legislators began to take action. The result: individual benzodiazepines and the entire class began to appear on guidelines and in legislation giving guidance on their use.
Note: in the same way Librium was marketed as being “non-addictive,” Sackler’s descendants did the same with the synthetic opioids.
The post What They Don’t Tell You About Anxiety and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines appeared first on LewRockwell.
About Last Week…
At one point, there was a deal, an understanding.
Government workers got paid a bit less than their compatriots in the private sector – in exchange, they got pensions and benefits and, essentially, jobs for life.
Firing an (un)civil servant has always been difficult, but that was part of the plan. In theory, this protection made them far less susceptible to outside influence when it came to making decisions. If you can’t get fired for doing the “right” thing then you will always do the right thing.
It was a classic safe bet.
Obviously, over the past few decades, that deal changed. Three of the five richest countries in the country are near DC and they are not entirely filled with skeevy lobbyists and private sector influencers.
These two vids from Yes, Prime Minister, as usual, sum up the issue. First, salaries compared to what? and second, easy tricks to minimize the issue:
That’s how DC has worked, putting your tax dollars to work…for themselves
Additionally, when you have a fed job you get discounts on things like loans and insurance and such because the company knows – absolutely knows – that the chance of you getting fired are infinitesimal.
Like using a trust fund as collateral, the risk is minimized because, no matter what, the money will always be there…eventually.
That is why various and sundry fed workers are so confused and angry and upset and apoplectic and terrified right now.
Even though they broke the deal decades ago, Donald Trump and his buy-out offers are being called evil because they never thought they would be called on it, that they would have to explain why (this goes for local agencies, by the way) they enjoy pay and benefit packages better than the private sector while retaining immunity from being fired.
Of course, there are certain fed jobs that pay less than the private sector, but they are few and far between. At one point you could compare apples to apples – company accountant versus government accountant – but that idea disintegrated years ago. What private company position can be compared to “Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment” at the Pentagon?
The guy who calls Grainger for supplies, maybe?
Or this, from the Treasury department:
The Office of the Procurement Executive advances adaptive and equitable practices in leading the Treasury acquisition, contracting, and suspension and debarment programs.
OPE achieves this mission by leading the Treasury procurement system to:
1. Prioritize competition while advancing Administration priorities through procurement (e.g., category management, domestic sourcing, climate change, cybersecurity, supply chain risk management)
2. Modernize Treasury operations in leadership of the acquisition organization (data, innovation, customer experience, workforce)
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition (DAS-A) serves as the Department of the Treasury’s Senior Procurement Executive (SPE), Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer (DCAO), Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO), and Senior Accountable Official for Domestic Sourcing. DAS-A serves as the principal expert advisor to the Assistant Secretary (Management)/Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) in all policy matters regarding procurement and contracting, advises other top departmental officials on procurement and contracting matters, and serves as the Department’s key spokesperson and official representative on matters involving procurement and contracting.
The DAS-A is delegated full procurement authority for the Department of the Treasury, and is responsible for the maintenance and oversight of a Department-wide procurement system, including policy and operational matters, continuous improvement, acquisition career management, e-Government, evaluation and monitoring, and procurement and non-procurement suspension and debarment.
Procurement authority is delegated through the DAS-A to Heads of Contracting Activity in Treasury bureaus, who further delegate authority to Chief Procurement Officers (CPOs). Bureau CPOs delegate procurement authority to Contracting Officers who plan, solicit, award, and administer contracts for goods and services to support the Treasury mission.
If you weren’t counting, that’s seven layers of bureaucrats in six paragraphs.
And you wonder why they are panicked.
The post About Last Week… appeared first on LewRockwell.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/exr24_eu_en_2.gif)
Commenti recenti
1 giorno 20 ore fa
4 settimane 2 giorni fa
7 settimane 2 giorni fa
9 settimane 2 giorni fa
11 settimane 11 ore fa
16 settimane 2 giorni fa
16 settimane 6 giorni fa
20 settimane 4 giorni fa
23 settimane 2 giorni fa
23 settimane 6 giorni fa