LRC Blog

So THAT’S Why Obama Has Barely Been Seen or Heard From

He was too busy orchestrating the sedition campaign against President Trump, every step along the way, from the Russia/Manchurian Candidate Hoax to the Impeachment-for-Delaying Foreign-Aid-to-Ukraine-for-a-Few-Weeks hoax.

7:22 am on February 24, 2020

Election Dynamics Update

The source of odds is Election Betting Odds. Links at the top of the main page are useful in bringing up charts. The link here is to the Senate and House forecasts. There was stability for a long time in the 2020 House composition odds, with Democrats having a near 75% chance of maintaining control. That has started to change noticeably. The Dems are just under 60% now and the Reps a wee bit over 40%. It won’t take much continuation of this to turn this contest for House control into a real horse race.

This shift has coincided with another upward move by Sanders who is now even more clearly running away from the pack. He’s at 51.4% chance of winning the nomination. Bloomberg is a long ways back in second at under 20%. Everyone else has been out of the running for some time, and they are even more clearly out of it now, according to current odds.

The more that Sanders moves out front, it appears the more that House control may pass to Republican control.

Sanders has improved relative to Trump too. As the rest of the field fades, this is almost bound to happen. Trump’s at 58% chance of getting re-elected.

There is nothing that jumps out of the betting odds charts that suggests foreign interference in social media has caused a notable effect. However, the latest rise of Sanders coincides with the big decline in Bloomberg, and they can be traced back to the recent debate.

10:31 pm on February 22, 2020

Secession Fever!

Conservatives in five states are serious about secession from neo-Stalinist governments, such as the one in Virginia, now that it is completely controlled by Demo-Bolsheviks (thanks in part to financing by the likes of billionaire totalitarians George Soros and Michael Bloomberg).  In doing so these conservatives are repudiating the chief mantra of the Lincoln Cult, that his waging of total war on the Southern states “ended once and for all” the debate over whether the American union was voluntary and whether secession was legal.  Lincoln’s position, and the position of all card-carrying members of the Lincoln Cult, especially the “Straussian” neocons, is that the American union never was voluntary.  It is more like the Soviet Union, held together by threats of force, violence, and the waging of total war on civilians.  That was Lincoln’s theory of the American founding.  He may have used pretty words like the “mystic chords” of a “perpetual union,” but the real meaning was a coerced union held together by the mass murder of hundreds of thousands and the bombing and burning of entire cities.  It is little wonder that among Lincoln’s literary admirers were Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln warned of “anarchy” if any one state peacefully seceded.  That would come about, he said, because then counties would secede from states, and cities from counties, etc.  This is what Virginians are discussing today.  Another way of describing Lincoln’s “anarchy” would be “freedom from tyrannical government” or “devolution of power,” something that Lincoln was hellbent on prohibiting even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

I write about all of this in great detail in my new book, The Problem With Lincoln, to be published on July 7 by Regnery Publishing (available now for advanced purchase on Amazon).

9:47 am on February 22, 2020

Are Old Movies Better?

Justin Chang, film critic at the LA Times, remarks that Trump has mentioned “Gone With the Wind” as a racist dog whistle. The usual suspects took up this cry, like The Daily Beast, “Donald Trump Has the Absolute Worst Taste in Movies”. Does he?

Trump’s top 5 favorites in 2012 included GWTW, of which he said “It’s a classic. It has stood the test of time. For me, it’s a love story combined with a time in our country’s history that was pivotal in our evolution. The scope of the storytelling is tremendous.” His others were “Citizen Kane”, “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”, “GoodFellas” and “The Godfather”.

Are older movies generally better than new movies, as Trump suggested? Several years ago, I looked at how the IMDb user ranking scores of old film noirs compared to their scores for neo-noir remakes. The evidence is one-sided. Users rank the (old) originals higher than the (new) remakes. This foray into movie research is by no means complete or even unambiguous. At the time, I included the following remarks:

8:57 am on February 22, 2020

Send In The Clowns: Deconstructing The Nevada Democrat Debate

12:30 pm on February 20, 2020

The Cast Against Political Activism

When a car reaches a certain point going too fast around a bend, with a steep dropoff beyond, it’s too late for brakes or countersteering. US politics has reached that point. My talk from Loyola University New Orleans last weekend.

10:49 am on February 20, 2020

Another Mass-Murdering Socialist

A man in Germany murdered nine people in a restaurant yesterday.  The American news media immediately labeled him a “right-wing extremist” on the news last night, although today we learn from the European media that he was a self-described Nazi (National Socialist German Workers Party) who the media there are calling a “Nazi terrorist.”  

10:46 am on February 20, 2020

Why President Trump’s Pardon of Michael Milken Would Have Delighted Murray Rothbard

President Trump’s pardon of Michael Milken would have delighted Murray Rothbard.  Milken, who was famous for his “junk-bonds” takeovers of various companies, served 22 months in  prison for federal crimes that involved market trading. Murray Rothbard thought that Milken was a hero. As he explained in an article written in 1989: 

“During the 1960s, the existing corporate power elite, often running their corporations inefficiently—an elite virtually headed by David Rockefeller—saw their positions threatened by takeover bids, in which outside financial interests bid for stockholder support against their own inept managerial elites. The exiting corporate elites turned—as usual—for aid and bailout from the federal government, which obligingly passed the Williams Act [named for the New Jersey Senator who was later sent to jail in the Abscam affair] in 1967. Before the Williams Act, takeover bids could occur quickly and silently, with little hassle. The 1967 Act, however, gravely crippled takeover bids by decreeing that if a financial group amassed more than 5% of the stock of a corporation, it would have to stop, publicly announce its intent to arrange a takeover bid, and then wait for a certain time period before it could proceed on its plans. What Milken did was to resurrect and make flourish the takeover bid concept through the issue of high,yield bonds (the “leveraged buyout”).

The new takeover process enraged the Rockefeller,type corporate elite, and enriched both Mr. Milken and his employers, who had the sound business sense to hire Milken on commission, and to keep the commission going despite the wrath of the establishment. In the process Drexel Burnham grew from a small, third,tier investment firm to one of the giants of Wall Street.

The establishment was bitter for many reasons. The big banks who were tied in with the existing, inefficient corporate elites, found that the upstart takeover groups could make an end run around the banks by floating high-yield bonds on the open market. The competition also proved inconvenient for firms who issue and trade in blue-chip, but low-yield, bonds; these firms soon persuaded their allies in the establishment media to sneeringly refer to their high-yield competition as “junk” bonds, which is equivalent to the makers of Porsches persuading the press to refer to Volvos as “junk” cars.

People like Michael Milken perform a vitally important economic function for the economy and for consumers, in addition to profiting themselves. One would think that economists and writers allegedly in favor of the free market would readily grasp this fact. In this case, they aid the process of shifting the ownership and control of capital from inefficient to more efficient and productive hands—a process which is great for everyone, except, of course, for the inefficient Old Guard elites whose proclaimed devotion to the free markets does not stop them from using the coercion of the federal government to try to restrict or crush their efficient competitors.”

3:21 pm on February 19, 2020

Hillary’s War: Nine Years Later Libya Still A Living Hell

12:35 pm on February 19, 2020

18 Year Afghan War Coming To An End? Don’t Hold Your Breath!

12:31 pm on February 18, 2020

A Reductio

From: Richard Gaylord

Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:37 AM

To: Walter Block <>

Subject: Libertarian Purity – LRC Blog

Regarding this.

So, perfect adherence to the NAP, etc., is required of all libertarians, eh?

yes (and it’s required of anyone who claims to be libertarian).

btw – both murray and Ron Paul can be (in fact, are) wrong about abortion.


2:15 am on February 18, 2020

Those Nasty Martians Once Again (Am I Getting Martianophobic?)

Letter 1

From: zinsser

Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 8:43 AM

To: Walter Block

Subject: Joe’s murder

Hi, Walter. I hope you are well.

Your hypothesis about Joe’s murder is interesting, but it assumes that someone other than Joe has to kill him. Here is my take on it.

Thanks, Roger Mitchell

Did the Martians stipulate that “someone else” kill Joe (which would be murder) or are they only concerned with Joe’s death. If the latter, then Joe could just commit suicide which would be allowable under the NAP. If Joe was rational about the whole thing, he would simply do it and go down in history as the ‘savior’ of the world. This scenario is magnanimous.

If he wasn’t willing and refused to ‘pull the trigger’, then world-wide pressure could be brought to bear on him—emotional, psychological, financial, social, etc.—making his life completely unbearable and bringing him to the point where he was willing to do the deed and actually carried it out. This would be “two minutes of hate” with a vengeance. Since hate is not punishable by law (except in today’s modern version), there would be no crime committed and no one would be punished. This scenario is unfortunate.

If the Martians demanded that another person kill Joe, then whoever did it should be brought to trial on the charge of murder, found guilty with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced appropriately with the understanding that clemency and pardon, in all likelihood, would be given to him. He would always have the knowledge of his “sin”, but could be completely forgiven and set free. This scenario is pragmatic.

One other solution would be to simply deliver Joe to the Martians and tell them to do their own dirty work. Those who did this would be guilty of aiding, abetting, and complicity in Joe’s murder, but would not be guilty of the murder itself. This scenario is defiant.

Regardless of the method, the ultimate goal would be to effect systematic change so that something of this nature never happened again. This alone would bring perfect justice to Joe’s death.


2:13 am on February 18, 2020

Prisons, Post Offices

From: Tim McGraw

Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 11:39 AM


Subject: Privatization is Resurrecting Feudalism: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Privatization is Resurrecting Feudalism: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Hi Walter,

I just read the most recent column by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (link above.) I’m interested in how you would debate or refute the points made by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

Also, I had no idea that Britain has privatized its postal service. I mail letters and packages to the UK fairly often and the service is very fast (less than a week sometimes). Whereas mail to Canada can take weeks to get there. Canadian customs and mail are awful.

Here in California due to the PG & E utility fiasco, almost everyone is calling for the state of California to take over the large utility.

All the best,

Tim McGraw

Healdsburg, CA


2:11 am on February 18, 2020

Co-Sponsors of The New Way Forward Bill

The New Way Forward bill in the House, (criticized here) as “insanity”, “…already-deported criminals who have committed crimes such as auto theft, gun offenses, child abuse, rape, and even manslaughter would be permitted to come back into the United States.”

Representatives who go out of their way to sponsor bills are called co-sponsors. Co-sponsors of bills such as this mad atrocity that undermines our safety need to be removed from office come November The current co-sponsors are all Democrats. They are

Rep. Garcia, Jesus G. “Chuy” [D-IL-4] |
Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]
Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7]
Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]
Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7]
Rep. Haaland, Debra A. [D-NM-1]
Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-13]
Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16]
Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5]
Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29]
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14]
Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27]
Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]
Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1]
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]
Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-41]
Rep. Barragan, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6]
Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24]
Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-15]
Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]
Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12]
Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-51]
Rep. Cardenas, Tony [D-CA-29]
Rep. Brown, Anthony G. [D-MD-4]
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [D-GA-4]
Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46]
Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5]
Rep. Lowenthal, Alan S. [D-CA-47]
Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., III [D-MA-4]
Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]
Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4]
Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-11]
Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-20]
Rep. Levin, Andy [D-MI-9]
Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4]

The fact that so many bad representatives get elected and hold office for considerable periods of time, people like these who sponsor, support, and vote for highly destructive bills, is one of the best arguments for dissolving the USA and its Constitution.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren support he bill.

7:05 pm on February 17, 2020

Presidents’ Day

Today is Presidents’ Day, a celebratory commemoration of American statolatry by the regime nomenklatura of those political figureheads who have reached the pinnacle on the pyramid of power. Two essential essays are must-reading to provide the proper spirit of disinterested reflection and veneration on this solemn day. One is by Lew Rockwell; the second is by the late Ralph Raico.

3:28 pm on February 17, 2020

Happy Dead Presidents Day!

And a hat tip to my two favorites, William Henry Harrison (one month in office) and John Tyler.

3:22 pm on February 17, 2020

The Koch-Soros Foreign Policy Project: ‘Restraint’ Or Deception?

12:26 pm on February 17, 2020

Blue Marlin Good, White Marlin Bad

My nominee for the most asinine act of political correctness, “wokeness,” virtue signaling, and anti-white race hatred for 2020 goes to the women’s slut-gossip rag, Cosmopolitan magazine.  It appears that “Cosmo” sent a photographer to photograph one of the female contestants in “The Bachelor” TV show and promised to put her (and him) on the cover.  The ragmag reneged, however, after discovering that the contestant, Victoria Fuller, once modeled some clothing for an environmental organization that is concerned about the endangerment of white and blue marlins in the world’s oceans.  Victoria’s “sin” was to have her picture taken with both “Blue Lives Matter” and “White Lives Matter” t-shirts, referring of course to the fish.

She has now been officially “cancelled” by the communist cancel culture in America and has even groveled with an apology.  I suppose she would be back in their good graces if she would only start wearing a “White Lives Don’t Matter” t-shirt.


12:25 pm on February 17, 2020

The Cancer of Peak Progressivism

Victor Davis Hanson’s diagnostic cataloging of the criminal insanity provoking a plunging devolution into chaotic nihilism is the strongest case I have encountered of why the country desperately needs a national enema, a therapeutic purging of all infectious Progressivism from the bowels of the body politic. Progressivism is not an ideology, it is an insidious intestinal cancer eating out our substance as a civilization. Know the anamnesis or medical history of how this statist scourge developed over time in order to immunize yourself and combat it.

9:45 am on February 17, 2020

Franz Jägerstätter and Sophie Scholl

Edward Curtin’s soul wrenching and evocative “Painting A True Christ: A Review of Terrence Malik’s Film “A Hidden Life,” tells the powerful story of Franz Jägerstätter and his defiance of the German National Socialist regime under Hitler. It immediately brings to mind the searing story of Sophie Scholl, her brother Hans, and their best friend Christoph Probst as told in Sophie Scholl, The Final Days, the movie featured above.

Watch this true story based on the courage of one single girl who had the faith and fortitude to STAND AGAINST the Nazi Reich while in Munich. Then read “The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent,” the acclaimed Jacob G. Hornberger article on this heroic trio of martyrs.

Curtin, in his review, believes this dilemma of conscience has indeed come to America. Will we each now have to face the same brutal system Franz and Sophie did? If that does happen, what will we do when the time comes to speak for what is right? Each one of us must examine if we have the strength to practice what we preach. Sophie’s faith in the Biblical Jesus gave her courage and the will to defy the powers of darkness even to the end. What will fortify, inspire and empower us to defy and speak truth to power at the cost of our lives and integrity?

Both Franz Jägerstätter and Sophie Scholl were executed by beheading for their “crimes” against the Nazi terror state.

What happens when freedom and adhering to one’s most inner-most conscience becomes a crime?

8:46 am on February 17, 2020

Steve Bannon: Bloomberg Has a Personal Vendetta Against Trump

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, and Bill Clinton

2020 is shaping up to be a possible repeat of 1992 — a vicious campaign of betrayal, revenge and seething hate — similar to that vindictive race between George H. W. Bush, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.

10:04 pm on February 16, 2020

Why Did Pelosi Tear Up Trump’s Speech?

Pelosi now says that she tore up Trump’s speech to get attention. This is her second explanation, and it does not gibe with her earlier one, which was that she did it because the alternatives were worse. What did she want to do, spit on it? Set it afire? Walk off the stage? Turn her back? Interrupt Trump? Unsheath a knife or a scissors?

My instantaneous reaction to this latest statement of hers is that she’s lying (making it up), because she could have given a speech afterward pinpointing the errors she claims Trump made on every page. She made this explanation up after the fact. She wasn’t thinking that at the time. She either pre-planned it or else did it in a pique of emotion. I believe the latter is true. Here’s why. She said afterward that her tearing it up was better than the alternatives. The implication was that she wanted to do or say something more violent because she was emotionally distressed at him — angry, and frustrated that she did not have the podium and he did. She couldn’t speak and express her disapproval but he could. She didn’t do it to gain attention to his errors or draw attention to her better ideas, but to let off steam and rain on his parade at the same time.

This much can be granted. Just maybe she did it to divert attention from his speech, which is a little different. But I do not think that she decided “I’ll divert attention from his nonsense. I’ll gain the attention.” No, hers was an act of sabotage, an emotionally-based act, an interference in what is his constitutional obligation, like booing or heckling. Hers was a symbolic act of rejection, certainly clever in that aspect, but clearly not in the spirit of free speech. It was more in the spirit of antifa, that group of fascists who aim to suppress speech they dislike. She’s in tune with that.

I do not claim to be able to read someone’s mind, but I do think we can put 2 and 2 together, and we can tell when something is not quite right or sounds phony. This sounds phony to me, an ex post rationale to make herself sound more rational about the whole affair. And it does not square with what she said earlier about the alternatives she was avoiding. She’s been mightily peeved at Trump for months and months. They did not shake hands. She barely introduced him. His speech was on her turf, but it was beyond her control. She was frustrated at having no control. Not only that, this speech did not conform at all to the usual soporific State of the Union.

It was underlying spite, petty ill-will, and hatred toward Trump built up over many months and a number of clashes with him combined with anger and frustration on the spot that motivated Pelosi, not a calm, cool and collected political decision. And she as much as admitted this right after the event. When asked why she tore it up, she replied “It was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative.”

7:46 pm on February 16, 2020

Several Recommended Articles

Today’s American Thinker has several very disturbing articles.

Angela Merkel and the Destruction of German Democracy” reveals Merkel’s evil activities.

A truly disturbing article is “Criminalizing Dissent“. It’s about the persecution of a student at UMass, Amherst, by mob and by a leftist instructor who is using law to her advantage, so far, that is. In the end, she’ll get her comeuppance and the University will pay through the nose. One comment after this article is pertinent:

“Yet again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich (2003), historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) ‘organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.’ To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).

“Today’s fascists call themselves ‘anti-fascists.’ Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent. Forcibly suppressing the speech of someone with whom one disagrees is a quintessentially fascist act.”

The third article is “DC LAW“, and it provides insight to the Roger Stone case. That story is still developing: “More than 1,100 former prosecutors and other DOJ officials call on Attorney General Bill Barr to resign” reads a CNN headline. This letter has obvious political roots, which render it as devoid of any real legal bearing on the Stone case.

There is NO case for Barr resigning over the Stone matter, none whatsoever, but prosecutors and DOJ officials do not always need a genuine case in order to create one. They are experienced at fabrication. This letter is but another instance of the perpetual motion to thwart Trump and his agenda. Stone’s case is an obvious miscarriage of justice, from his staged pre-dawn arrest down to his mistrial, chaired by a prejudiced judge who should be removed from the bench. The sentencing recommendation was utterly excessive and was rightly brought into question.

5:14 pm on February 16, 2020

Viktor Suvorov and the Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy

In an earlier LRC Blog I referred to Viktor Suvorov’s scholarly work regarding the role of Hitler and Stalin in beginning the Second World War. Suvorov’s revisionist writing has largely fostered what has been described as the Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy. Wikipedia has a concise summary article that outlines this major international academic debate among historians of WWII. As with all Wikipedia entry’s, it should be viewed as a preliminary initial source guiding researchers to wider, more in-death materials, and not the final authority:

The Soviet offensive plans controversy is a debate among historians whether Soviet leader Joseph Stalin planned to attack Axis forces in Eastern Europe prior to Operation Barbarossa. Most historians agree that the geopolitical differences between the Soviet Union and the Axis made war inevitable, and that Stalin had made extensive preparations for war and exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage. Viktor Suvorov has argued that Stalin planned to attack Hitler from behind while Germany fought the Allies, and Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler. Many historians have written in response to Suvorov’s views. Gabriel Gorodetsky and David Glantz authored books debunking his claims.[1][2][3] Suvorov received some support from Valeri DanilovJoachim HoffmannMikhail Meltyukhov, and Vladimir Nevezhin[4][5]

The brilliant Ron Unz also has an excellent summary article on the controversy, relating his personal quest for truth in this matter.

Here are two of Suvorov’s major books which outline and summarize his researchIcebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? and Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II.  Published first in the eighties, Icebreaker was the first in Suvorov’s series of historical books. By the year 2000, it was translated into 27 languages and published more than 100 times. Icebreaker is a book about communist preparation and execution (however poorly, but not for the lack of trying) of the biggest crime in the history of mankind, World War II.


10:48 am on February 16, 2020

A Sends B a Letter Through the Mail; Who Owns That Letter?

Dear Richard:

I agree with you entirely.

I would also extrapolate to snail mail.

Suppose I send you a letter on a piece of paper. Who, now, owns it? I think you do. In effect, I made you a gift of a piece of paper with my writing on it.

Best regards,



2:41 am on February 16, 2020

Can a Person be a Net Taxpayer, and Still be a Member of the Ruling Class?

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:13 PM


Subject: net taxpayers in ruling elite

Dear Walter,

In your view, can you be a net taxpayer but also be in the ruling elite? Or does paying taxes automatically exclude you from the elite?



2:39 am on February 16, 2020

Punish the Innocent?

Dear Tim:

I don’t see the problem with (pure) privatization. PG&E was always a highly regulated “private” company.

I think only guilty people should be jailed, not innocent people, in order to keep others honest.

Best regards,



2:36 am on February 16, 2020

The Best Enemies Money Can Buy: Antony C. Sutton

I want to draw the attention of LRC readers to focus intently on the exemplary scholarly work of Antony C. Sutton. His outstanding body of research has fascinated and intrigued me since first discovering it in 1972.

Sutton was one of the 20th Century’s most prodigious and incisive scholars of how the United States and its Western European allies built the Soviet Union’s military industrial complex.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a murderous parasitic regime responsible for the deaths of over sixty million of its own subjects by its state security forces, and over twenty seven million persons killed during the Second World War.

This later devastating conflict was enabled by the duplicitous actions of Germany’s National Socialist Fuehrer Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and his Politburo of killers as described in Victor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II.

In 1920, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises demonstrated in his path-braking article, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” that all attempts to establish socialism would not work, for reasons of informational efficiency. Because of the absence of a market-based pricing system of profit and loss, socialism could not perform the necessary economic calculation to survive.

The Soviets turned to economic parasitism through exclusive monopolistic trade deals with western corporations, espionage, theft, and expropriation of technology from the West. It was Soviet parasitism and the sale, transfer and theft of technology from the West which built the Soviet military-industrial complex.

Virtually the same complicit and compliant corporate and financial interests who enabled Nazi Germany’s warfare state, were responsible for creating this regime of terror. This treasonous activity continues today. The authoritative volumes by Antony C. Sutton below definitively document these activities essential to understanding the Cold War struggle between East and West.

In addition, consult the following:

  • From Major Jordan’s Diaries — Book by George Racey Jordan.
  • Red Carpet: The Connection Between the Kremlin and America’s Most Powerful Businessmen – Armand Hammer, Averell Harriman, Cyrus Eaton, David Rockefeller, Donald Kendall — Book by Joseph Finder
  • Techno-Bandits: How the Soviets Are Stealing America’s High-Tech Future — Book by Linda Melvern, David Hebditch and Nick Anning
  • Vodka Cola — Book by Charles Levinson
  • East Minus West = Zero: Russia’s Debt to the Western World 862-1962 — Book by Werner Keller

6:31 pm on February 15, 2020

Adam Carolla on Why the Days of Wokeness are Numbered

Some funny clips, but hard to buy his optimism. As long as envy exists, there will always be a desire to use the state in a retributive role.

4:57 pm on February 15, 2020

Matt Gaetz on Why Andrew McCabe Evaded Justice

Lucy holds the football, and Charlie Brown (the average Republican voter) runs up to try to kick it again, only to end up kicking air. More of the swamp at the DOJ needs to be drained? Why hasn’t it? When will Matt Gaetz be drained? Same old sales pitch, Durham will indict someone. Don’t hold your breath.

4:51 pm on February 15, 2020