Thank you to Vicki Marzullo @ Lew Rockwell.

3:00. Interesting constitutional question so I have to go back to 1883 and the Pendleton Act and talk about 

3:12.  In 1883, we have some discussion about civil service reform.  Why?  In 1881, we have the assassination of President James Garfield.  So he's walking in a train station, and a disgruntled office figure named Charles Guiteau shoots him in the back.  He doesn't die right then; he'll die later on horribly from infection because they're trying to find the bullet, and they kept digging around in his back.  When Guiteau  shoots Garfield, he says, "I am a stalwart of the stalwarts."  Arthur is president now, and what did that mean?  In the 1880s in New York, you had political factions vying for the spoils of the presidency.  Now at that time there were a shade over 100,000 federal jobs in the United States, and the party in charge of the executive Branch appointed all of these people the president actually made $100,000 appointments or at least he delegated that out to subordinates who appointed people it wasn't any civil service the executive branch turned over every time a new president came in all of them including things like postmasters all of that turned over you could have a new postmaster every 4 years because the postmasters were appointed by the president and this was very effective for the Republican Party during the war by the way because they would put Republican postmasters so they could control the Postal Service, they could search the mail and other things.  We had all of these appointed people.  Well, Guiteau didn't get a job, and so he thought he was going to take it out on the president.  He shot the president and killed him.  At that point, Chester Arthur becomes president.  Chester Arthur was a stalwart.  There were two factions.  One were the stalwarts, one where the half breeds.  The stalwarts were purely party men.  If you were not a Republican, if you were not someone who toed the line, the Republican Party line, you were not going to get a job.  The Half-Breeds, like James Garfield, believed in hiring Democrats at times.  They didn't really have to be a Republican; he wanted the best man for the job.  These were the reconciliationists.  You saw this when you got to a period after the war where there was some insistence that some Democrats were brought into the fold, or at least some Southerners.  These were people that were thinking, "Well, we need to reunify the United States.  Let's put some things back together." So, after Garfield was killed, there was an outcry for civil service reform.  "We've got to get rid of the spoils system.  It's a problem."  So that led to the Pendleton Act of 1883 Chester Arthur was behind it so was most of the American population but even at that point with well over 100,000 workers only about 10% were covered by the Pendleton Act still there were a lot of people that worked as civil service employees that we're going to be hired instead of political appointees only about 10%, so you're looking at what 13,000 people.  the rest were still Federal appointees.  You could see how small the federal government was at that point if only 10% were covered by civil service.  Most of the people were not.  That means the president still appointed all these people.  Now, today we have a federal workforce of around 3 million people, 3 million people.  Unprecedented.  3 million people.  What D.O.G.E. is finding out is that most people don't do any work. They simply get a salary, and it's corrupt and fraudulent, and everything else is graft.  All of it.  But all of those people are covered by the Civil Service law except for the President [who] appoints such a small percentage of the federal workforce now.  That is almost all of the 2.9 million people.  I can't remember if that number includes military people or not.  I don't think it includes that.  To cover the soldiers, there is a million of those.  So now you've got almost 4 million people who are on federal service, and when you're broaden it out further when you look at people who are on the door who get money from federal contracts Federal money it's a huge number millions and millions of people are getting federal dollars in one way or another.  So we have this interesting situation that has developed since 1883 where the president has become completely hamstrung to control the executive branch.  In 1883, the president controlled all of it.  In 1882 the president controlled every higher in the executive branch there were 130,000 of them.  Today, the president controls very few.  So we've gotten 180° in the other direction.  People complained in 1883 that the President had too much control.  But it only covered 10% of the federal workforce, so they were still fine with the president getting everything else.  So what happened?  Over time it was that people decided that who wanted bigger and more bureaucracy, and that the president didn't need to have control over these people however in the 1880s when you go back and look at how some of what the president said about this.  The Pendleton Act itself actually had all kinds of rules and regulations.  One of the things was that you couldn't be overly political.  You couldn't be forced to do something for political reasons but you couldn't take money you couldn't do anything political but now we know the federal workers do this all the time. And when Grover Cleveland became president, he actually set out some rules.  You had to be a US citizen to be in the Civil Service, all these things.  The Civil Service Commission made recommendations.  One of the things was that you couldn't show up intoxicated.  Regardless we had a civil service that covered very few people and even as it expanded out the president had a lot of power over who could be hired and fired even there under civil service.  So this is the vesting clause, the vesting clause.  The president is the head of the executive Department and because of the vesting clause if you want to read it broadly it just means that he has the powers vested and him through the Constitution of only the things listed there but these people that are in favor of extensive executive power they said the vesting Clause means that anything that would be executive is invested in the president, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court.  They have no control over it.  Separation of powers, and the president has the authority to do these things.  He has the authority to appoint, for example, Elon Musk, and create this DOGE committee to go and review the waste in government and make recommendations, which the president can then implement.  He has the power in the vesting clause to fire people who are not doing their job.  He's the president of the United States.  Or his secretaries have the power to fire people because they're not doing their job.  This was a big issue during Reconstruction.  Could the president of the United States fire the commander, the General in Chief of the US Army?  The Congress said no, the president said yes.  This has now been litigated out and this is under the administration of Andrew Johnson and the courts have decided that, yeah, the President can fire the General in Chief ;we call him the Joint Chiefs of Staff now, but they can do it.  The president can fire these people he can also hire these people even if Congress has a role in hiring them the president can still fire them because they're not doing their job Congress doesn't have to have any role in that so that vesting Clause actually allowed a broad interpretation of it for Franklin Roosevelt to use the executive branch to transform the government in the 1930s.  Also Woodrow Wilson has set the stage for that in the 19-teens, but really Franklin Roosevelt did it more than anyone else.  And essentially what has happened since the 1930s is that we've seen a massive expansion of federal power through the bureaucracy, because that's what Roosevelt did.  He created a fifth column.  He created a bureaucracy that was unmovable.  He knew exactly what he was doing and he talks about it we have all these people people working in government and really when this is over when World War II was over the United States just rearranged the deck chairs and they just kept all of the stuff in place.  So we kept the massive bureaucracy in place.  We kept all the things in place that he was doing, supposedly to win the war, win the war on poverty, the war on depression, win the war in Europe.  Truman just came in and rearranged the deck chairs, and we kept this in place so really no one alive today remembers what it was like before this even if you were old enough to remember World War II there are still some people alive and their 90s that could remember that you really don't remember what it was like before that if you were 18 in World War II at the end of World War II you're in your mid 90s now so you might somewhat remember a time but you really don't remember anything before the 1930s when Roosevelt became president so you don't really remember anything about this we've had three generations of people now essentially who have been brought up under a system, a Roosevelt-type system, an American fascist system, that's what it is.  And so all Trump is doing is going in and doing something with this stuff but using the same powers that Roosevelt claim he had in the 1930s.  

Imagine loving your country, it's history, and accomplishments, its people, and culture THIS MUCH

Thank you to David Krall @ LewRockwell.  "The very best version of the Russian anthem (Bolshoi Junior Choir)."

I don't know.  This 1984 version, two years before the Chernobyl disaster, shows a lot of love and pride in the accomplishments of the Soviet Union.  It's pretty good too.

DAVID HEARST: Trump's plan for Greater Israel is not a recipe for peace, but a recipe for California-style wildfires. It is the wind which will project devastation across a vast tinder-dry region

Thank you to David Martin @ Lew Rockwell.  The speaker's name is David Hearst, editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye.

Immigration to the US is now heavily subsidized by government handouts, and it’s a no-brainer that all welfare for immigrants must be abolished. It's also important to limit citizenship. But some aspects of the Trump plan dangerously empower government agencies in ways similar to the state-building legislation of the post-9/11 days. We don’t need more federal power in the US. We need less.

Let's talk about the Trump immigration plan plans from both a free market laissez-faire classical liberal perspective and look at what's good and bad about the plan some aspects of it are great no brainer they protect private property rights some aspects essentially expand Federal police powers and that's not a good thing. 

GOOD PART OF TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION PLANS 

00:29.  Cutting out welfare dollars.  In recent decades, the US Immigration system has become a government subsidized scheme.  Show up, get free money, access to schools.  All sorts of free stuff get thrown at migrants.  Even those who go through the legal system after only 5 years they get access to a wide variety of welfare programs.  Also get access to citizenship they're at least begin the process after 5 years. 

Also, brand new immigrants showing up and have money thrown at them, like these five-star New York hotels subsidized by the government to turn them into fake "refugee shelters."  You see this in cities like New York but really across all US cities.  Debit card with thousands of dollars on it; free housing in luxury hotels; free food, as well as free natal care.  Americans saw it as a problem.  Huh.  That's why they're voting for Trump.  So no downside to cutting all that immigration welfare in this scheme of subsidizing migration.  Nothing wrong with true private sector migration where someone gets invited, offers a job to these people or the private sector supports these people and these people have to be productive in return.  Situation when we're facing.

02:12.  Citizenship is not a property right there is no natural righteous citizenship in any particular place except for the tiny number of people who would be rendered truly stateless where they denied you a citizenship none of these people arriving would be stateless without being granted you as citizenship they already have citizenship in the countries they came from when a lot of them get citizenship in the US they don't renounce their old citizenship they now have dual citizenship showing that they were never at risk being stateless but by not having citizenship are not forfeiting any property rights we should expand the time Horizon for citizenship to at least 10 years maybe 20 this requires a person to be far more invested in the local community to contribute a lot more to the local economy before they can start to extract resources in the form of social benefits programs and that doesn't endanger anyone's property rights you don't have to be a citizen to acquire property to keep it to have legal contracts with others.

MASS DEPORTATION

03:40.  How do you accomplish Mass deportation?

Border agents don't have special powers to determine who is legal or illegal.  How do you determine this?  You have to conduct investigations. How do you conduct investigations you ask people what their citizenship status is you investigate them you spy on them essentially You observe them demand they provide proof of citizenship ask people for their papers I know we're going to be told by many conservatives if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear that's what these people told us with regards to the Patriot Act, the NSA spying, and the war on terror, in general, those vast expansions in the surveillance state, that a lot of conservative supported said "Hey, it's no big problem, because the government would never abuse its power."  Of course, we know, they always do.  So any scheme to go out and start investigating people more closely to determine what their citizenship status is, it's problematic.  Some migrants will volunteer themselves for deportation; these people are criminals in many cases.

05:54.  Since World War II, the US created this whole new idea of a "Border Zone."  [Border Patrol was created in 1924, and became part of US Customs & Border Patrol, CBP, in 2003.  This 25-mile wide border zone was created in 1952.] It's no longer just the border with a wall checking to see if a migrant is a felon; that's one thing that virtually nobody has a problem with.  But since World War II this new invention of the federal government, the obviously unconstitutional, 20th-century thing created was this 25-mile "Border Zone," where border agents can wander around asking people to prove their citizenship.  That was unilaterally extended without approval from Congress up to 100 miles and more recent decades.  You've seen videos with this on YouTube where people are just driving through the American Southwest and they're being stopped and asked about their citizenship.

07:20.  Going around asking citizens to justify their existence with paperwork is a problem.  We can't have a society that punishes private citizens for trying to rent an apartment to a person who doesn't have the correct government paperwork.  Or for someone who's paying a migrant to mow their lawn and they don't have the correct government paperwork.  These are all examples and excesses of Federal power expansion beyond a border issue.  Cutting off welfare dollars is the best start.  Or changing the citizenship situation that actually limits Federal power

None of these people arrive stateless.  By not having any citizenship, these people are forfeiting any property rights.  They have citizenship in their old country.  They are dual citizens.  We should expand the 

You don't have to be a citizen to acquire property, to keep it, to   

MARTIN ARMSTRONG: if Trump gets in, the Neocons are out. Victorian Nuland was thrown out of Trump's Administration. She has been in every Administration but Trump's

Gold has got nothing to do with inflation.  Gold goes up basically when you're questioning the future, who is going to survive?  Gold goes up generally when there is a collapse in confidence in government, and that typically centers around war.  --Martin Armstrong

 

Thank you to Lew Rockwell @ LRC.

14:30, HUNTER.  So let's say they get war, what happens to the economy? What happens to the bond market?  

14:38, ARMSTRONG.  Basically, we're looking at a 2-year decline in the stock market, interest rates going up, and you're looking at major crises in debt.  China owns 10% of our debt.  They would be absolutely brain-dead to hold on to any of it.  Because what happens in war?  You default on your enemy.  That's it.  Whatever they have, sorry, we're not paying anything.  Go on.  This is what they do.  

15:15, HUNTER.  Is this why gold is hitting one record high after another?  I mean it briefly went over $2,600 an ounce, and Goldman analysts are saying, nah, it's going to $3,000.  They're going to get this war.  I mean they're not going to stop, are they?  Are they afraid of default?  That's why gold is going up?  

15:35, ARMSTRONG.  Look at gold back going into 1980.  It went from $176 to only $400 in December 1979.  It from $400 to $875 in the last 6 weeks of 1979.  Why?  It had nothing to do with inflation.  Why?  That's when Russia invaded Afghanistan.  Gold has got nothing to do with inflation, that's nonsense.  The national debt went up for 19 years, and gold went down for 19 years.  That's just a one-dimensional analysis, "Oh, buy gold, because it's inflation."  No, it's not.  Gold goes up basically when you're questioning the future, who is going to survive?  Gold goes up generally when there is a collapse in confidence in government, and that typically centers around war.  That's the way things have been for centuries.  

from GoldSeek,

"That was basically caused by OPEC raising the price of oil dramatically and that created a cost-push inflation. So everybody's costs were rising dramatically. Anything that had to do with plastic, went up dramatically and that created eventually the inflationary boom between 1976 going into 1980. As for gold rose to $875, etc...I think gold was about a $100 in 1976 and it rose to about $400 but that was by December 1979, the last six weeks of the rally, which peaked in 1980 on January 21st. So from December to January 21st, that's when Russia invaded Afghanistan. So it was the geopolitical stuff that took gold from $400 to $875. So it's important to understand inflation is not the major driving power but inflation when war is around – that's what broke Bretton Woods...it was the Vietnam War."

16:45. Are they going to try to kill Trump again are they going to go for the third time as a charm are they going to do it again I'm not trying to be morbid I don't want him dead I don't want him dead but these people are cuckoo demonic are they going to try to kill him again?

17:02  I wouldn't put it past them. I mean maybe next time they use monkeypox or bird flu or something but Trump represents a real threat to their power.  If Trump gets in, the Neocons are out.  Who wrote that article for the Washington Post, "A Trump Dictatorship Is Increasingly Inevitable," Oh Trump Would Be a Dictator?  We Should Stop Pretending"? It was Victoria Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan.  Why?  Because Victorian Nuland was thrown out of Trump's Administration she has been in every Administration but Trump's pick up the rug and look at this stuff from the beginning of this year I was told that Biden will never be the candidate he was to remain on there to prevent anybody else from getting on the ticket including RFK why because this has been a setup I was told that he would stay until after the Republican convention why so the Republicans are confused and they don't know who they're running against then he steps down and hands it to Kamala this is the first time in history the Democrats have never had a right to vote for their own candidate why do they want to know why why do they want Kamala Harris because she's another Biden she says whatever she's told and will sign whatever they put in front of her nose.  That's why they want her I don't think they thought that she would do as bad in the approval rating the real one not the fake one the people that come to you for the real numbers so they come to you for the real numbers because when I put this number out Martin Armstrong says that it's 10, 10.5%.  My other source who backs it up says it's 8 and 1/2%. I don't get a single troll that says, "Oh, that's wrong because they don't want that to show up in search."  Not even alt media will pick it up.  Zero Hedge did pick it up last time, but that's a real number.

19:32. They can make them say whatever they want.

19:40. I'm not a fan of hers either but Hillary would have been better 

19:50. She's not going to be president and then do everything that they say, no. They don't want a strong president.

19:55. I hate to tell you this, but Biden would have lost, but Biden would have done better than Kamala. 

20:04. Maybe.  I mean she never even got one delegate in the primary before against Biden. They are afraid, they know she can't win, that's why the push for the shooters.  I mean how clumsy is this, another assassination?  They're pushing for shooting missiles into Russia. They know she can't win.

20:17. The second attempt at assassination is even more but this guy is not from Florida the question is how did he he got down there and suddenly suddenly gave him a gun and untraceable gun

KEVIN RYAN: What Really Happened to U.S. Air Defenses on 9/11/2001?

Thank you to Lew Rockwell's "What Really Happened to U.S. Air Defenses on 9/11/2001?"  September 12, 2024.

17:50, RYAN.  Communications to NORAD went to General Montague Winfield. 

The entire military chain of command was missing on 9/11. 

General Montague Winfield, a general at the National Military Command Center, was missing. 

General Tom Canavan was missing. 

President George W. Bush was missing, attending an elementary school or preschool reading session.  The Secret Service was not protecting him.  He was there for 35 minutes after the attacks began.  It was highly publicized in there.  So he was taken out of the picture by just sitting there reading "My Pet Goat" to the children.  

The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, 2001-2006, was the next line in the military chain of command, and he went missing as well.  He didn't know anything about what was going on, he said, until the Pentagon was attacked at which point he went out into the parking lot and tried to help with stretchers for more than 30 minutes and couldn't be contacted.  These are incredible stories but they're true.  

19:00  And the next person in the military chain of command was Hugh Shelton, 14th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1997-2001, and he was out of the country, just gone to Europe mysteriously.  And then Winfield Montague and Canavan were out, everybody was out just for that morning, just for those hours.  So that's another reason why things didn't go very well, but . . . .  One of the more important reasons was that there were military exercises going on 9/11 that not only mimicked the event but they obstructed the response. 

19:40, RYAN.  So before 9/11 and a couple of years before 9/11, there were 28 hijack exercise scenarios that the military practiced.  And about 1/4 of those were suicide missions into high-value targets.  So people don't hear about this very often but if you research you'll find out that the information is there, that the military practiced this and they practiced this on 9/11.  There was an exercise called Vigilant Guardian 2001 that was practiced on 9/11 and had been going on for a couple of days when on September 9th, they had practiced the hijacking for a suicide attack against the United Nations Building in New York City just a few blocks from the World Trade Center.  That's 2 days before 9/11.  On September 11, they conducted similar hijacking events in which they were inserting simulated hijackings into the live air surveillance system, so they called it SIM Over Live.  The simulated injections were confusing the people who were supposedly responding, they all thought it was an exercise.  In their testimony with the 9/11 Commission, they say, "We thought the exercise had started early." The evidence shows that the simulated injections continued until after the attacks and definitely disrupted the response.  

21:13, MORRIS.  So you have all of these high-ranking members of the military, the chain of command, gone, missing; all of these folks at the FAA, missing, gone.  You have these simulated attacks being injected and being run on that particular day, 9/11, which seems like the perfect, you have what many believe, we on this show as well, with the experts that we've had on this show, what many believe that these aircraft were remote-controlled.  They were not piloted by these morons.  They couldn't pilot a Cessna.  They didn't know what they were doing . . . with precision guidance . . . absolutely not.  So these were remote-controlled aircraft being manipulated on that particular day and that's why we don't have jets scrambling to get close to the cockpit to confirm that these pilots are not actually piloting the plane.  It all seems, I mean you look at Occam's Razor, all of these things point to a massive, massive cover-up, no? 

22:05, RYAN.  It definitely does, and you can see the different ways that the 9/11 official account is false and they all look very much like it was a cover-up.  You may know that in the 9/11 Commission Report, they didn't even mention some of the major events that happened that day, like the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.  Didn't even show up in the report.  The testimony of 9/11 hero, William Rodriguez.  Or the FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds.  These are critical testimonies that never showed up in the report.  And this cover-up of the air defenses was really had to come down to just "Well, everybody was just lying.  They weren't tracking the planes."  I can say that 2 years after the 9/11 Commission Report came out, they justified this new account through an article in the magazine called Vanity Fair.  And you may remember something they called 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes.  They suddenly found some tapes that somehow explained away that they didn't really know about it, and the communications failures were the big problem.  This reporter had gotten privileged access to these NORAD tapes that apparently NORAD didn't even know about.  That's amazing in itself.  So they tried to years later to justify it, but really they never came down to the explanation of why would all these people be lying in order to make themselves look bad?  So if you think about this, that's exactly what it is.  If they were never notified, they would have just said "We were never notified.  How can we have possibly intercepted the jets."  But that's not what they said.  They said, "Yes, we were notified with 20 minutes on Flight 175, 14 minutes on Flight 177, and 47 minutes on Flight 93."  And we were tracking these planes in detail; they give detailed testimony to this, and generals and colonels, people we just wouldn't expect to be lying for any reason, particularly for a reason that makes them look bad ultimately. 

24:27, MORRIS.  Also, I remember on that day news stations were reporting about the flight over Pennsylvania and tracking it in real-time.  It had gone missing.  Where was it?  It wasn't over Pennsylvania, so even news reports.  Even if you want to discount NORAD or being notified, even NBCNews, The Today Show, and others were reporting about this flight.  So they would have been fully aware of this. 

24:54, RYAN.  That's right.  Not only that but air-traffic controllers were taking notes.  So FOIA released documents that showed that air-traffick controllers were writing notes about having been, like Flight 93, having been hijacked and where it was going on the Ohio and Pennsylvania border long before it crashed.  So why would they all create these fictional accounts?  It makes no sense whatsoever.  It really . . . unless psychology you really need to believe the official account, which is the case for a lot of people.  I think psychologically, they really need to believe the official account, so whatever way they can do that they're willing to accept.  

25:48, MORRIS.  Yeah, I think there's a cognitive dissonance out there, they want the official story to be one particular way, the one shooter, and they don't want discussions about a conspiracy, which we now know verifiably is the case, whether it's the assassination attempt on President Trump or the 9/11 attacks.  So it's unbelievable to me that the American populous would sit back and say, "That's okay.  In this 9/11 Commission Report, you've left out critical testimony on purpose, FBI whistleblowers, and others about these pilots, all sorts of critical information, you've purposefully left out of the 9/11 Commission Report, or you purposefully didn't interview individuals or ask them critical questions.  That's all missing from the official 9/11 Report, and I remember the time when the 9/11 Report came out [July 22, 2004]

MICHAEL MCKAY: World Health Organization Caught Lying. There Was No Bird Flu Death in Mexico

Thanks to Michael McKay's "World Health Organization Caught Lying. There Was No Bird Flu Death in Mexico" @ Lew Rockwell.

See his video here.

You can watch Mr Alcocer’s statement HERE  (translated into English)

You can watch his statement in the original Spanish HERE.

The World Health Organization claimed a person’s death in Mexico was due to the “first laboratory-confirmed human case of infection with an influenza A (H5N2) virus.”

This was not true

From 100 Percent Fed Up:

The patient’s medical profile clearly shows bird flu played zero role in his death.

The patient, a 59-year-old resident of the State of Mexico, had no history of exposure to poultry or other animals.

“The case had multiple underlying medical conditions. The case’s relatives reported that the case had already been bedridden for three weeks, for other reasons, prior to the onset of acute symptoms.” 

Now, Mexico’s Health Secretary has pushed back against claims that bird flu caused the patient’s death.

Jorge Alcocer Varela dismissed the WHO’s announcement that the 59-year-old’s death was due to the bird flu strain.

Other media from around the World also reported the WHO’s lie:

And from Turkey:

Mexican Health Secretary Jorge Alcocer on Thursday denied an announcement by the World Health Organization (WHO) that a man’s death in Mexico was caused by a strain of bird flu that had never before been found in a human.

During a morning briefing, Alcocer rebuffed the WHO’s announcement and assured that the 59-year-old man, who was reported to have died from the A(H5N2) strain of avian influenza, “died from other causes, mainly kidney and respiratory failure.”

Alcocer urged people to remain calm and to take the WHO’s announcement with caution because it is “not accurate.”

MM Comment:

The WHO has an agenda of fomenting fear and consistent record of creating panic.

Please don’t get sucked in and – please – share this with all those you care about.

Thank you.

[The regime libertarian] spends his time advocating this or that tax reform, for example, but never discusses the idea of repealing or lowering existing taxes.

https://t.co/9v0COmdNSm pic.twitter.com/66VGVIo8l7

— Dr. Michael Rectenwald (@RecTheRegime) April 7, 2024

The regime libertarian loves the idea of reform, whether it's the Fed, government schools, or whatever, but he flees from the idea of abolition.  Why?  That's just not respectable.  

JASON HELMES: You develop confidence and strong mental health by doing things, not by thinking or via therapy.

Just finished this book - Bad Therapy by @AbigailShrier

This is one of the most eye-opening books I've ever read. It's a must read for any parent, any teacher, and should be required reading for any school administrator as well.

The book dives into trying to figure out why… pic.twitter.com/HXiNJUqsbK

— Jason Helmes (@anymanfitness) March 7, 2024

Thank you to Karen de Coster's "The Therapy State" @ Lew Rockwell.

Find Abigail Shrier's website here. And her Twitter feed here.

Some takeaways:

1. We incessantly ask kids how they're feeling, if they're happy, how their mental health is, etc, and this is creating kids who think they're fragile instead of resilient.

2. Trying to solve every problem for kids has caused a generation who can't do anything for themselves.

We (Gen X) were told to "suck it up" or "you'll live" or "rub some dirt on it" all the time. Many of us came to the conclusion this is "bad parenting" because our feelings were neglected, and we vowed not to do this to our own children. Because of that, kids immediately over-dramatize everything that happens to them, making mountains out of molehills, and thinking the world must revolve around their emotions and feelings.

3. You develop confidence and strong mental health by doing things, not by thinking or via therapy.

You can't think your way out of anxiety. You don't gain confidence by analysis of your thoughts or mental health issues. You gain confidence and eliminate anxiety by doing gradually more difficult tasks, excelling at them, and realizing you are a competent, capable person.

4. One of the best ways to decrease your happiness is to chase it.

Our society constantly tells kids they should be "happy" and asks them if they are. Happiness isn't a state you should be in 24/7. That's not realistic. Joy and bliss aren't permanent states - they are fleeting. Contentment, stillness, and being even-keeled are much better goals to aim for mentally.

Documentary on The Prisoner and Patrick McGoohan

Thank you, Lew Rockwell.  An interesting documentary on Patrick McGoohan and the 1967 British spy series, The Prisoner. 

Seed Oil Poison

Thank you to Lew Rockwell.  

what drove those young men to burst the gates of Gaza?

Thank you to Lew Rockwell for this video interview between Russell Brand and Norman Finkelstein.  

Israel imposed a brutal economic blockade in 2006 on Gaza.  The effect of that blockade was that nothing could go into Gaza, and nothing could come out of Gaza; no person could go into Gaza, and no person could leave Gaza without Israel's permission.  Israel imposed in the course of that blockade a regime of starvation plus a diet on the people of Gaza that literally calculated the caloric intake of the people of Gaza and then allowed food to enter Gaza at a starvation-plus level.  Gaza has suffered from among the worst economic deprivation, in particular, unemployment in Gaza.  Among Gaza in general, it's about 50% of the population.  Among youth, namely the people who burst the gates of Gaza, the unemployment is at a level of about 70%.  About 97% of the water in Gaza is poisonous; it can't be drunk by the people.  Now, if you add up all of these factors what do you get?  And I really just skimmed the surface I haven't mentioned that half the population of Gaza comprises children.  I haven't mentioned that 70% of the population of Gaza comprises refugees who were expelled from Israel in 1948 and their descendants I haven't mentioned that Gaza is among the most densely populated places on God's Earth I haven't mentioned that the young people who burst the gates of Gaza.  Most of them were born into that place, which suffered from this economic blockade since 2006.  So what do we get when we put all these factors together?  Well, we take your own former British Prime Minister David Cameron, who now I understand is your Foreign Secretary.  David Cameron described Gaza as an open-air prison.  If you take Israel's senior security establishment officials he was the head of Israel's National Security Council, his name is Giora Eiland.  And in March 2004, Giora Eiland  described Gaza as "a huge concentration camp."  And so what you saw on October 7th was young men who had been born into a concentration camp and had lived for 20 years of their lives in that concentration camp.  But that's only half the story.  The other half of the story is Israel periodically "mows the lawn" in Gaza.  And what is "mowing the lawn"?  "Mowing the lawn" is these high-tech massacres that Israel launches against Gaza.  And a lot of people nowadays express the opinion that if Israel is conducting such massive death and destruction in Gaza, it's because of what happened on October 7th.  Well it is true, it is true that the quantitative magnitude of the death and destruction in Gaza is at a new level.  I wouldn't argue with that.  No sane person would argue with that.  But it's not true that the methods that Israel is employing in Gaza are new or that they suddenly emerged after October 7th.  So I asked your colleagues to just print out, you have in front of you, a list taken from not a human rights report, not from the United Nations, but just random testimonies of Israeli soldiers who fought in Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Now I want you to bear in mind that this list comprises not soldiers who are peacenicks, not soldiers who feel guilty or remorseful about their actions; on the contrary, these soldiers just randomly describe what they did in Gaza.  And I want to reiterate for your listeners, this is before October 7th.  This is Standard Operating Procedure for Israelis each time they "mow the lawn" in Gaza.  So I'm going to ask you, Russell, because by profession you're an actor, so you have a much better voice than me.  Just for each testimony I'm going to ask you to go Soldier.  Read one soldier, read the next because I think it's important for listeners to understand what drove those young men to burst the gates of Gaza, and, we have to be honest, committed atrocities.  So if you don't mind, just read it for the listeners.

9:02.  Reading page 219 from This Is How We Fought in Gaza: Soldiers Testimonies' and Photographs from Operation Protective Edge 2014, Breaking the Silence.  I'll be asking you with the oppositional of you to everything that we are discussing here is you know when people say that Israel is the only country that has ever shown any sort of clemency to Palestine that there never was a nation of Palestine free 1947 all all of the common arguments so that we can even if that come up so that we can even have a conversation that has some tenacity and integrity to it these are the sources that Norman has requested that I use it.

Soldier 18: When we left after the operation, it was just a barren stretch of desert.  We spoke about it a lot amongst ourselves, the guys from the company, how crazy the amount of damage we did there was.  I quote, "Listen man, it's crazy what went on in there.  Listen man, we really missed them up, fuck, check it out, there is nothing at all left . . . , it's nothing but desert now.  that's crazy."

Dr. Madison Oak: Relief From Vertigo: An Excellent Resource That Many People Need

 

Thank you to Michael McKay @ Lew Rockwell. 

Vestibular migraine is the most common cause of neurological dizziness in vertigo.  So that is what got me started on what is now the Vertigo Doctor, which is my Instagram website.  I am everywhere.  She references BPPV, which stands for Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.  And Epley or vestibular neuritis .  Her site is TheVertigoDoctor.com.  

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: Iran will not stand by and allow Hezbollah to be destroyed.

Americans used to be people who'd say, "Wait a minute, what's this go to do with us?"  They don't do that anymore.  --Col. Douglas MacGregor

Thanks to Daniel Cohn @ Lew Rockwell.

Iran will not stand by and allow Hezbollah to be destroyed.  --Macgregor

Netanyahu wants to expand the war.  

Israel doesn't have any friends in the Middle East, but now it has serious enemies.  And the populations are going to shape the destiny of Israel in the future.  

Is this an American national security interest, or an American domestic politics reality? 

It is a reality of domestic politics.  The American people have been conditioned for decades to see Iran exclusively as an enemy that had to be destroyed.  

I mean I could take you into WalMart or CVS, and ask somebody, "What do you think about those Iranians?"

Oh, they're bad.  They're terrible.  

It's worked.  It goes back to our discussions about why are all of these people so quick to swallow the line about Russia being evil and corrupt, dangerous, and invading everyone?  Well, you fell back on the Cold War.  There is still that underlying consciousness, and there is a willingness to accept what is being taught in academia, what comes across the airwaves on television, 

Americans used to be people who'd say, "Wait a minute, what's this go to do with us?"  They don't do that anymore.  They have been brainwashed, and conditioned.  Intellectually and socially to say, "Iran is evil and bad, therefore, get rid of it.  Now, there are younger people who don't share that assumption. And I don't think that Americans really understand what war means.  A friend of mine who fought in Vietnam was a helicopter gun pilot as a warrant officer, he's a great person and worked for years in the intelligence committee.  Worked for me when I was at the Supreme Headquarters of Light Powers Europe.  And he was telling me, you know, Americans have no idea what's going on.  We had Army groups in Europe between 1944 and 45, from June of 44 until the war ended, that sustained 756,000 casualties, more casualties more losses than we could replace.  We have forgotten that war involves a lot of killing.  The Israelis are experiencing that now, and they are not insensitive to it.  But imagine it on a regional scale and Industrial scale.  We lost 19,000 casualties a month from June of 44 until the Battle of the Bulge broke out, and then it went up to 100,000 a month.  I'm just talking about American forces in Europe, you know, but we never bring these things up.  That's war.  And we have played with this war thing and now we've watched what the Russians have done who understand war.  They have a grasp of it.  Look at what they have done; they built a force for war.  This is not some boutique, specialized army or Marine Corps designed to go into third-world countries where nobody has air defense, where nobody can defend themselves effectively, where they have very little organized military power.  That's [Russian force] a force capable of waging scientific industrial war in the 21st century.  We don't have that, and if we drag ourselves into this thing by provoking a war with Iran, this thing will spread because the Russians will not stand by and watch us destroy Iran.  China has an enormous interest in the Persian Gulf in the Arabian Peninsula.  It Imports most of its oil and gas from there. Russia has tried to make up for some of it when it could not reach it, but today it's impossible to feed the Chinese industrial machine without the Persian Gulf, without the Middle East.  They are not going to stand by and watch us annihilate Iran.  And we talked before about the Turks . . . the Turks are, you know, that nation is ready to fight.  Mr. Erdogan has talked himself into a real corner, and my judgment because people there are enraged and ready to fight, this is a large gasoline storage site that simply needs the right match at the right time at the right location and it will blow up.  That's the problem.  

25:57. I want to talk with you later in the week about Russia, Ukraine, and China before we finish today, and thank you for that superb analysis of where we stand. Here's a clip from a former colleague of yours, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who shares your views and my views on nearly all these things, being pretty critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I wonder if you agree.

26:24. Since Netanyahu took over, indeed probably since Ronald Reagan had to really bash the Israelis when they went into Lebanon in 1982, but it certainly been their policy since Netanyahu took over, he is the most Draconian leader Israel has had in its short history since 1948 he is der Fuehrer.  He is der Fuehrer.

26:53. Fair?  

26:54.  That may be true but I don't think at this point it's terribly relevant, because this situation has moved well beyond Mr Netanyahu.  The forces in play now will not be easily arrested; they will not be contained.  The so-called Genie is out of the bottle.

27:12. Even if Netanyahu were to go for domestic political reasons your view is the genie STAYS out of the bottle.

27:20. Yes, I think we're in a position now that I've tried to describe in the regional sense with all of the Islamic world, and I don't see any easy way through this at this point.  If we were to stop supplying the Israelis, that might have an impact in the short term but in the long term.  Their strategic position now requires support or they will go out of existence, even with our support potentially in the next 12 months.  Given what I see emerging on the horizon, that may be very questionable. 

“They want everyone to be completely isolated and not connected by language, culture, family ties, or a native land where you feel at home,” Müller continued.

from LifeSite.  Thank you, Lew Rockwell. 

“Mass immigration is not about helping people but about destroying national identity,” Müller said. “They say that national identity is nationalism, which has caused all the wars, so they say they are against nationalism, but they are really against the nation.” 

(LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Gerhard Müller has said that “self-appointed” globalists are using mass migration to destroy the national identity of countries.  

In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews, Müller talked about the ideologies behind globalism and their dire consequences. 

“Mass immigration is not about helping people but about destroying national identity,” Müller said. “They say that national identity is nationalism, which has caused all the wars, so they say they are against nationalism, but they are really against the nation.” 

“If nationalism is the reason for wars, we must ask who is financing the wars and what interests are behind it.” 

“They want everyone to be completely isolated and not connected by language, culture, family ties, or a native land where you feel at home,” Müller continued. 

“They want to destroy all that. They want everyone to be atomized, without cultural and religious roots and identity,” he concluded. 

Müller also believes the elites are committing a “genocide” by promoting abortion and euthanasia. 

The German cardinal said many globalists believe that there are “too many” people on Earth who are causing “climate damage.” 

To fight this supposed “overpopulation,” these powerful elites are using abortion and euthanasia as part of an “extermination program,” Müller told LifeSiteNews. 

 “And at the same time, anyone who criticizes this is called a Nazi by those who themselves promote the murderous Nazi ideology of ‘might makes right’… The genocide that is now being carried out is protected through propaganda by equating its critics with the people who committed the genocide in the past,” the cardinal added. 

“The perversion of their logic is to portray the victims as the perpetrators. What is the depopulation program other than a plan of reducing people through violence?” 

Müller explained that the “Nazi” accusation is often used as an “instrument of power” to suppress dissent. 

“They [the globalists] don’t care that suicide rates among young people are growing worldwide. It’s just right for them.” 

This low regard for human life comes from the philosophical position of materialism that the globalists subscribe to, Müller told LifeSiteNews. According to the materialists, “human beings are just matter, just a mass of people that can be manipulated,” he explained. 

Editor’s note: LifeSiteNews journalists Maike Hickson and Andreas Wailzer conducted the interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller in German and translated his words into English.