The US will be providing Israel with munitions and other equipment
“Israel already receives $3.8 billion in military aid each year from the US. It’s unclear how the US will be funding the new arms it’s sending to Israel, which will likely be pulled from US military stockpiles.”
President Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday for the second time since Hamas launched an operation in southern Israel and said that more US military aid is on its way.
According to the White House, President Biden “conveyed that additional assistance for the Israeli Defense Forces is now on its way to Israel with more to follow over the coming days.”
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a statement that the US “will be rapidly providing the Israel Defense Forces with additional equipment and resources, including munitions. The first security assistance will begin moving today and arriving in the coming days.”
Israel already receives $3.8 billion in military aid each year from the US. It’s unclear how the US will be funding the new arms it’s sending to Israel, which will likely be pulled from US military stockpiles.
Ankara, Washington’s NATO ally, continued launching airstrikes in northeast Syria on Monday against US-backed Kurdish militias. According to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 20 people were killed and dozens more were wounded.
Turkey’s latest air campaign against the armed Kurdish groups in US-occupied Syria, as well as northern Iraq, began on Thursday. It was precipitated by a recent suicide bombing which targeted the Turkish Interior Ministry. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) claimed credit for the attack, both Ankara and Washington have deemed the group a terrorist organization.
Turkey insists the suicide bombers entered the country by way of Syria, although the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) denies this is the case. The SDF, Washington’s proxy in its years-long illegal occupation of roughly a third of Syria, is dominated by the Kurdish YPG which Ankara sees as ancillary to the PKK. The US has about 900 troops in northeast Syria, controlling most of the country’s oil and wheat resources as an extension of Washington’s economic war against Damascus. Additionally, thousands of Turkish troops are occupying areas in northern Syria.
“What a free market does not thrive on is governmental force. Force is the antithesis of freedom, and the more force, the less the freedom, until, eventually, the free market collapses under the weight of governmental interference.”
“At this point, those who are hoping that, in the future, collectivist liberal-driven legislature will be countered by free-market conservative-driven legislature will be disappointed. The overall trend of legislation is firmly toward collectivism.”
“Roughly half of Americans will regard this new law as an advancement of cultural diversity. But corporate boards are not petting zoos, in which the objective is to collect one of every possible variety of people.”
A half-century ago, the US was the envy of the world – the Land of the Free, where virtually anyone could prosper, if he were willing to roll up his sleeves and work.
America was made great through the immigration of those who wished to pursue the American dream of “work = personal success.” It’s important for us to remember that those who were less ambitious remained in their homelands and helped their countries stagnate, whilst their worker-bee counterparts colonised America for generations.
An important lesson here: America was not built on immigration per se; it was built on immigrants with a strong work ethic.
Not so, today. Whilst there are certainly those who move to the US to pursue the original American dream, far more go there due to the promise of governmental largesse. Welfare, free health care, free education, etc., now attract those very same people that stayed behind in previous generations – those who made little or no contribution to the economy.
This, of course, degrades the economy itself, as citizens, new and old, are encouraged to consume entitlements rather than work.
Of course, the critical ingredient in the Land of the Free was the Free Market – the system under which individuals and companies had the ability to make their business decisions based upon what was most profitable.
The 1960s brought about increased racial enlightenment in the US, resulting in the growth of greater opportunities for minorities in the workforce. At about the same time, women were increasingly receiving better educations and were seeing greater opportunities as leaders in business.
Again, this was all a part of the free market. A free market will invariably benefit from those who are the most capable, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity.
John Dickinson pushed that kind of message forward during the ratification debates as well. He argued that enforcement of the Constitution ultimately comes down to the “supreme sovereignty of the people.”
“It is their duty to watch, and their right to take care, that the Constitution be preserved; or in the Roman phrase on perilous occasions – to provide that the Republic receive no damage.”
That’s a “Constitution Day” message we all need to be aware of.
We’ve all heard this phrase – it’s almost legendary. People have used it in campaigns, slogans, as a book title, in support or against all kinds of things.
First of all, considering the fact that we live under the largest government in history, it should be obvious the Republic wasn’t kept. But there’s a lot more to the story – and Benjamin Franklin’s speech in the Philadelphia convention on the first “Constitution Day” – September 17, 1787 – has a lot more.
“Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.
There’s certainly a historical debate over whether it even happened – or if the conversation with the highly influential Elizabeth Willing Powel was elsewhere.
But all that is far less important than the message, which is part of what Dr. Franklin gave in the first speech of the last day of the Philadelphia Convention.
In the opening words of his speech, Franklin laments that “there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve.”
He didn’t mention – at that point – any structural problems he had with the Constitution. Delegates were already well-aware of his areas of concern, such as his warning on June 4th that “The executive will be always increasing here, as elsewhere, till it ends in a monarchy.”
While we don’t live under an hereditary monarchy, we certainly see an executive branch with an extremely dangerous amount of power today. It’s just what other founders, such as Thomas Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee called “an elective despotism”
Back to Franklin’s speech. He did express his chief worry – that the people wouldn’t do their part to support it. His words were eerily prophetic.
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
Franklin understood human nature. He suspected the government created by the Constitution would eventually fail. But not because of any specific structural defect that may exist in the document itself. He said that the Constitution would be “well administered for a course of years.”
But he predicted it would go off the rails if the people did not do their job in keeping that government within its limits. At that point, it would become incapable of operating under anything other than despotism.
I have published almost 3 dozen books, just over 700 refereed journal articles and essays in law reviews, and maybe several thousand op eds (I don’t keep track of the numbers of those). But this is the publication that I think makes the most important contribution:
It attempts to explain why there are so few libertarians. The explanation? Our human biology! Trigger warning: don’t read this if you are easily offended.
“However, corporations are hand in glove with the State and enforce its laws and regulations in increasingly direct ways, not to mention the fact that most corporate bigwigs, like almost all high government officials, tend to be sociopaths.
“CBDCs. You won’t be able to buy, sell, own, or transfer anything without going through the central bank’s computer. They have the prospect of reducing us to veritable serfs. Serfs with currently a high standard of living, but serfs nonetheless.
“Boobus americanus will welcome it, however. It will seem so convenient…
International Man: Before people understood what oil was, they considered it waste. Later, once people understood the economic potential of oil, it was transformed from unwanted waste into a lucrative commodity.
Similarly, British mathematician and entrepreneur Clive Humby said, “Data is the new oil.” What he means is that data people used to perceive as worthless could become extremely valuable when refined and analyzed.
What’s your take on all this?
Doug Casey: Data banks know practically everything about everybody. Trillions of microchips are increasingly interconnected. The Internet of Things lives in The Cloud. They’re controlled by algorithms and increasingly by artificial intelligence. They’re so complex that I wonder if they won’t take on a life of their own. If SkyNet exists, it’s bound to be growing larger and more powerful every day.
“They” know everything about us, both as individuals and as groups. It’s very much like what Larry Ellison said 30 years ago, to the effect of “Forget privacy, it doesn’t exist.” And that was decades ago. It’s orders of magnitude more true today.
Most of where we go, who we see, how we feel, what we do and have, say and write, believe and think, might seem trivial and of no value to others. But when thousands or millions of bits of these things are aggregated and analyzed, they form a pattern which “they” can use. And use it they do. Mostly in a subtle more-or-less benign way right now. But conditions can change.
International Man: Cellphones, computers, smart TVs, cars, Google, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and countless other devices and platforms collect enormous data about our interactions, preferences, and actions.
All of this information is stored and can be refined and analyzed.
What are the commercial implications of monetizing this data?
Doug Casey: I try not to worry about the commercial implications of this data being monetized, per se. Partly because you can’t really avoid it, and most commercial applications probably won’t hurt you.
However, corporations are hand in glove with the State and enforce its laws and regulations in increasingly direct ways, not to mention the fact that most corporate bigwigs, like almost all high government officials, tend to be sociopaths.
Today, everybody is attached to their cell phone. The thing is fun, convenient, and almost necessary. But you should, to the greatest degree possible, stay away from the thing, not just for privacy, but for sanity and mental health. Many people appear umbilically attached to their device, unaware that it’s constantly feeding you propaganda while uploading tons of data to likely adversaries. Every minute, you’re on it. I hate my cell phone and avoid using it. The same goes for electronic vehicles (EVs).
All cars have thousands of computer chips today. The worst offenders, though, are EVs, which are constantly reporting, sending, and receiving everything that happens. Your rate of speed, where you are, and perhaps even what you say in the car, whether you know it, or like it, or not, becomes part of a permanent semi-public record.
I’m a fan of electronic vehicle technology in some ways. They can make sense in cities where they don’t drive long distances and can be charged easily overnight. And in temperate areas so as to avoid depleting the battery. However, the State’s mandates for universal use by 2030 are simply insane, for many reasons that aren’t germane to this conversation.
Reflections on Maximilien Robespierre and Russell Brand
History teaches us that whenever tyrants make a move to overthrow the rule of law, they naturally target for elimination men and women who have a strong position and voice and the courage to speak out. The easiest way to eliminate them is to rummage around in their past and find something—real, exaggerated, or fabricated—to use against them.
On the subject of fanatical, homicidal dictators, the talk usually turns to the 20th century’s dynamic duo of Hitler and Stalin. I have read multiple biographies of both. While both were spectacularly destructive and criminal, they had far more military, industrial, and communication technology at their disposal than the fanatical dictators of the past.
Of all the dictators in history, I have often thought that Maximilien Robespierre the most frightening in his sheer, merciless fanaticism. He believed, with absolute conviction, that when it came to the business of destroying those whom he deemed “the enemies of the nation,” the more cruel and shocking the measure, the better. Over a century before Hitler and Stalin were born, Robespierre expressly praised terror and cruelty in the service of what he deemed virtuous. “Terror is naught but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.”
Maximilien Robespierre
I thought of this astonishing assertion a few days ago when I heard the news that the British actor, comedian, and public affairs commentator, Russell Brand, is facing accusations for crimes he allegedly committed in the years 2006-2013. As the Guardian reported:
The 48-year-old comedian and actor has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC and Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films. He denies the allegations.
Before we have seen any presentation of evidence—never mind a day in court—we are already hearing loud calls from every Establishment quarter in the UK to punish, demonetize, and humiliate him.
As he seeks reelection, President Joe Biden has taken up a new cause: to make the Middle East safe for autocracy. Three years ago, he promised to turn the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman into “a pariah.” Today, Biden is slobbering all over MbS, offering a security guarantee that would turn US military personnel into bodyguards for the Saudi royal family. The proposal is a scandalous testament to the flood of Saudi money coursing through America’s political and policysystem.
Only stupidity or senility can explain current policy. President Donald Trump began the strange practice of making Americans pay Arabs to establish diplomatic relations with Israelis. The biggest losers were the Palestinians, since diplomatic normalization had been one carrot for Israel to agree to creation of a viable Palestinian state. Whatever assurances about occupation policy that Netanyahu made were flagrant falsehoods, instantly violated, leaving residents of the West Bank a subject, exploited population. The Trump administration compounded the US betrayal with its infamous “Deal of the Century,” a Trojan Horse concocted by and for Netanyahu. His sectarian coalition’s predictably harsh mistreatment of Palestinians has since cooled Gulf ardor for recognizing Israel.
More importantly, Americans paid much for little in return for the “Abraham Accords.” To start, whether Arab states formally recognized Israel mattered little to the U.S. Several already had informal dealings with Jerusalem. Israel and its neighbors have benefited economically from increased ties, but that means they had reason to act without being bribed.
“I urge you to watch this brief video of what a German Member of the European Parliament said recently. Here is the Twitter post:”
“The so-called “pandemic” was a beta test—conducted by unelected globalists—to see how easy it would be to seize totalitarian control, under the pretext of a global “emergency”.
“The goal, ultimately, is to transform our free and democratic societies into totalitarian societies. Their goal is to strip each and every one of us of our fundamental rights, of freedom, democracy, the rule of law. They want to get rid of all of this.”
For the past three years—especially the first eighteen months of those three years—anyone who dared to speak out against the Covid fraud was forced to endure a painful price. Physicians were threatened with the loss of licensure, dismissal from their positions, they were blackballed, subjected to media crucifixion, etc.; airline pilots were fired or forced into retirement; soldiers were threatened with dishonorable discharge, demoted in rank, repositioned away from elite units, made to live in filthy quarters, subjected to harassment, etc.; those few pastors who resisted the Covid narrative were vilified in the media, excoriated by fellow clergymen, and attacked by liberal hate groups and local medical boards, etc.
Things are quite different today. Granted, there are still pockets of attempted Covid tyranny in operation; and you know that Gates, Schwab, Biden, Newsom, et. al would love the opportunity to roll out the Covid totalitarian system universally again, but most people—at least in the United States—are NOT going to go down that prison-yellow brick road again.
Climate change, electric cars and the “woke” agenda are the new tyrannies that Schwab and Company (this link is a hilarious video caricature of Schwab—MUST WATCH) are counting on to ride them into their dream of global authoritarianism—over which they are the masters.
MCViewPoint 