Watch “The Most Important Lesson in ECONOMICS” on YouTube
Reply
Author Archives: theartfuldilettante
Why is Trudeau Still a Free Man ?
The question is not: Why is he still in office? The question is: Why is he still walking free, instead of under arrest and on trial for war crimes against the Canadian people?
Ditto for Biden, all of America’s Democratic mayors and governors and many Republican ones too. When in the hell did WE become scared of THEM? THEY should be scared as hell of US.
In the old days, it was Stalin and Hitler. They were nasty, aggressive villains who at least looked the part.
Trudeau is a morally and physically puny snowflake. How low do we have to go to be threatened by such a worthless specimen of human debris?
Michael J. Hurd r, Daily Dose of Reason
Why People Can’t Face the Truth
John McWhorter, who teaches at Columbia, is one of a handful of blacks who write sensible things about race. He complains that the media bellow whenever police kill a black man but are silent when they kill a white man, and worries that claims of “systemic racism” are leading to a movement to exempt blacks from standards.
But Prof. McWhorter’s Substack review of Charles Murray’s latest book, Facing Reality, is deliberately blind. Its value goes beyond Prof. McWhorter, however, because it’s an explicit statement of the mental prison people on the Left and Right build for themselves — and for the country: “I reject facts I don’t like.”
Prof. McWhorter starts by patting himself on the back for his broadmindedness — “Murray’s work is too carefully reasoned and too deeply founded on scholarly sources to be dismissed as ‘racist’ ” — though he will dismiss it for equally disgraceful reasons.
Prof. McWhorter summarizes the book:
Facing Reality is seriously disturbing. Murray gives a great deal of evidence for two points. One is that black people aren’t, on the average, as intelligent as other people. The other is that black people in America are more violent than others.
Prof. McWhorter accepts that blacks are more violent, but insists it’s because of welfare, drugs, fatherlessness, etc. The part about IQ, though, “is tough reading.” Instead of attacking Dr. Murray’s data — he admits he can’t — he writes:
I suspect, in my gut, that the issue is cultural . . . . Abstract tests are a highly artificial thing . . . . Black American culture may be less consonant with that way of approaching things than white or Asian culture, and . . . could subtly discourage black kids from mastering the knack of jumping through the hoop.
Prof. McWhorter surely knows that white and Asian children do not spend their weekends “mastering the knack” of Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Still, he prefers to think blacks are just as smart, but have a “subtle cultural resistance to demonstrating it.” To his credit, he adds: “I openly admit, though, that this is also the way I hope it is, and that’s not science.” His hopes are no defense against Prof. Murray’s data.
There’s worse: “[I]t’s reasonable to ask of Murray: Why are you airing this information?” This is an odd question from someone who “airs” widely ignored information on crime rates and police killings. The subject of race and IQ just bothers him. I suppose it’s impossible to expect even an associate professor at Columbia to understand that Dr. Murray might just want to correct a widespread error.
Prof. McWhorter cites Dr. Murray’s own reasons for this unfortunate “airing:” “One is that Affirmative Action too often puts semicompetent people in government jobs.” But as Dr. Murray points out, it’s a whole lot more than “government jobs.” For example, white K-12 teachers and nurses have a 15-point IQ advantage over black teachers and nurses, and this is reflected in their performance ratings. Prof. McWhorter wants good schools for blacks. Wouldn’t he want good teachers for them, even if they are white? But he’s not worried by affirmative action: “I have a hard time seeing this [legions of semicompetents] as precisely a national tragedy.” He needs to look a little harder. Obsessions with “diversity” are already corrupting science itself. As one wag put it, in a country turning brown, the national tragedy of incompetence “will come slowly, then suddenly.”
Prof. McWhorter cites Dr. Murray’s other reason to let loose with the facts about race and IQ: “[I]dentity politics — as in racial set-asides and a tacit media conspiracy to keep disproportionate rates of black crime under wraps — is about to create a revolutionarily inclined white identity that will plunge America into a race war.” That’s a very poor summary of Dr. Murray’s argument, which I describe better — and dissect — here. Prof. McWhorter shrugs it off as alarmist.
Finally, here is Prof. McWhorter’s true objection to learning about race and IQ: If the facts are as Dr. Murray says, meritocracy would mean that “we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts.” He adds: “I would have to work very hard to come up with a way of accepting that world.” So there you have it. Prof. McWhorter wants a certain kind of world, and doesn’t care how many facts we have to smother and how many whites and Asians we have to punish for him to get it.
Anyone who thinks for a living — and I imagine that’s what Prof. McWhorter fancies himself — must accept data, no matter how disagreeable, if he can find no fault with them. Anything less is cowardice or bad faith.
Prof. McWhorter’s funk over the data is important because he isn’t just anybody. He’s not completely blinded by the fog that hangs over every American university. He writes about the folly of thinking that it is “racist” to expect blacks to get math answers right. He ridicules the vendetta against Dr. Seuss. He worries about Critical Race Theory and the progressives’ grim “duty of identifying racism wherever they can find it.” He realizes that “woke” mobs are taking over institutions and “the alt-right” isn’t, and that there’s something wrong when people seriously claim that music theory is “white supremacist.”
But Prof. McWhorter has no idea where the madness comes from. He refuses to understand that it comes from denying the very facts he wants Charles Murray to shut up about. What explanation for black failure can there be but “white racism” if we can’t talk about race differences? Prof. McWhorter’s “culture” explanation only pushes the “racism” explanation back a step. How did blacks, stripped by slavery of their original culture, get this miserable “culture”? Obviously, whites gave it to them. That’s why we have to discover and root out imagined “racism” in music theory and in police shootings and in Prof. McWhorter’s favorite Dr. Seuss book. It’s also why Critical Race Theory is indispensable: It is the inherent malevolence of every living white man, boy, and baby that stifles the native genius of the black race. Blacks can reach their potential only when whites learn how awful they are, and dedicate their lives to atonement.
Many people would say of Prof. McWhorter: “Of course he can’t accept the truth. He’s black.” I don’t like that argument. Anyone with imagination can see past the end of his own nose when he looks at the world. I know no race realist who doesn’t accept the data on IQ differences between whites and Asians (though Prof. McWhorter seems to fear only the black/white gap, not the even greater black/Asian gap).
Like it or not, Prof. McWhorter is braver than almost every white academic. He read Facing Reality and didn’t just call it trash. He admitted he can’t disprove the data and that his “hopes” about black IQ “aren’t science.” That is a lot further than most whites would go.
I suspect Prof. McWhorter is mentally hobbled by something more than his race. Our climate of racial-moral zealotry doesn’t just punish people who say the wrong thing; it makes them incapable of even thinking the wrong thing.
Jared Taylor
Freedom: A Birthright, But Not a Guarantee
Back when the Patriot Act was passed, people like us tried to warn you: If the federal government can do whatever it wants to you in the name of “fighting terrorism”, then the federal government can do whatever it wants to you in the name of anything else.
When COVID fascism broke out, people like us tried to warn you: “This will go on forever.” Now, into year three, we’re trying to warn you again: “If the government can do whatever it wants in the name of fighting a virus (even an overwhelmingly nonlethal one), then the federal government will literally get away with anything.”
Election fraud, forced vaccinations with experimental drugs and no liability whatsoever for the companies making millions off it, brazen deceit, deliberately induced inflation, elimination of our country’s borders and destruction of the energy supply … are you convinced YET?
With Canadians unable to support political opposition or dissension without having their bank accounts frozen and their dogs seized and murdered, we’re also trying to warn you: “If it can happen up there, it can certainly happen here.” Most in America don’t seem to care all that much about what happened in Canada, and the leftists in America — who control all of education and media, and all of the federal government — have expressed total approval of these measures. They want the same here, and more.
You think concentration camps or some equivalent cannot and will never come to America? What’s to stop them? Certainly no mass opposition. Certainly not the media, the schools or the courts. What’s to stop them? Why would they not try such a thing? They’re all sociopaths and psychopaths, with unlimited power, people you would never let near your own children.
Freedom may be a birthright. But it’s not a guarantee. Throughout human history, the norm has been for freedom to be brutally and thoroughly violated. The United States of America, for a couple of shining centuries, showed that trend could be reversed.
But now millions of us sit here and either (1) applaud tyranny, demanding more (the 30-40 percent who still support Biden); or (2) complacently sigh, “Well, it can’t happen here. This is America. We’ll always be free.” Trump will rescue us. Or someone else will. But we can sit passively and wait because, after all, we are destined to be free.
No. We’re not destined to be anything other than what our choices give us.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
Wealth and its Creation
Adam Smith recognized the nature and cause of wealth; it results from the development and extension of the division of labor. As Smith observed, “It is the great multiplication of the productions of all different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-grounded society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.” This market process is the source of wealth, since it brings individuals freely pursuing their own interests into voluntary cooperation with others. For example, an individual who specializes in mechanics, cooperates, perhaps unknowingly, with those specializing in physics, chemistry, meteorology, mining, steel production, and hundreds of other fields to create travel by airplane and make it possible to fly to almost any major city in the world. It is through the division of labor, peaceful cooperation, and free exchange—the market process—that wealth is created….
The market process is the source of new wealth. It does not redistribute wealth to the powerful at the expense of others, such as in a collectivized economy; rather, it enables new goods and services to come into the marketplace. A free market system is a positive sum system. Remarkably, the standard of living can rise, even though the population is increasing, because the total amount of wealth is not fixed. Transfer payments, on the other hand, come at the expense of wealth creators—workers, businessmen, investors, and successful entrepreneurs.
Contrary to popular sentiment, high incomes and high profits are key elements of the process which generates our prosperity. High incomes and profits are the reward a person receives for serving his fellowmen. More specifically, profits are the reward for reducing costs and using scarce resources most efficiently in the competition to satisfy consumer desires. By rewarding with profits those who successfully satisfy consumer demand, the free market maximizes the incentives to create goods and services. By permitting the accumulation of wealth, it also maximizes the amount of capital available to produce more. Profits direct this capital to where it is most vitally needed in order to meet consumer demand. Even Samuel Gompers, father of the American labor movement, recognized that “the worst crime against working peoples is a company which fails to operate at a profit.”
Envy, covetousness and hatred toward those with wealth is ill-advised. As Ludwig von Mises pointed out in Human Action, “The very principle of capitalist entrepreneur-ship is to provide for the common man…. There is in the market economy no other means of acquiring and preserving wealth than by supplying the masses in the best and cheapest way with all the goods they ask for.” Evidence of this was the success of that creative genius, Thomas Edison, who fulfilled his pledge to make the light bulb so cheap that only the rich could afford candles. As Brian Summers commented in the Spring, 1981 issue of The Lincoln Review, “It is true,… that a few captains of industry accumulated great fortunes, but they became wealthy through mass production of goods and services which raised the common man’s standard of living.”
High incomes and profits, the incentives to invest and produce, are put to work, provided they are not confiscated by government. The motive for wanting a larger income and higher profits should not be a concern of economics; whether for a base reason or a high-minded objective, the only way to get more, in a free market economy, is to serve others. The way to lessen poverty is to create a favorable environment for investment and wealth creation. In fact, when William E. Simon was Treasury Secretary, he suggested to a Senate committee that, “If you really want to help the poor, help the rich. They’re the ones who will invest, build more factories, create more jobs.”
* Excerpted from “What Causes Wealth,” by Roger Ream (August 1981)
Watch “Thomas Sowell Dismantles FEMINISM and RACIALISM in Under 5 Minutes #TBT” on YouTube
The Hostile Takeover Of The Republican Party Will Continue
Being a Republican voter is no easy thing. Social media censor you. Companies fire you. The Department of Justice persecutes you. Democrats assault and harass you. And all the while, most Republican Party “leaders” stand back and do nothing as they watch. We’ve got the only political party in modern history controlled by a small group of elected officials who fundamentally disagree with the prevailing viewpoints of 90% of the voters who put them in office.
Election after election, their unstated yet indisputable campaign slogan is simply, “Vote for us because we don’t hate you quite as much as the other guys.” (I’m not even sure that’s true!)
This disconnect between Republican voters and Republican oligarchs has endured for decades, but I do not think it will survive much longer. The reason why is that the average Joe has figured out D.C.’s Uniparty game: take one “ruling class” dedicated to power and money and nothing more, divide that small class of swindlers into two nearly identical political parties, pretend those two criminal cabals hate each other when the opposite is true, and present the American people with a choice-in-name-only every election.
You can vote for the Big Government socialists invested in totalitarianism or the Big Government socialists invested in empire and world domination. (Note: The parties may swap that small distinction depending on the decade.) That’s American “democracy” in a nutshell — a hallowed ritual for electing criminals to positions of power from where they can commit even grander crimes with impunity in the name of the people. In exchange for their dedication to fleecing and betraying us, we christen streets, marble halls, and naval vessels after their worst offenders.
Name another profession whose whole business model is centered on creating problems where none exists, so that the same people who created them can spend enormous sums of money guaranteed to make things worse. Only politicians could declare a “war on poverty,” waste tens of trillions of dollars, and get more poverty. Only criminal kingpins could declare a “war on drugs” while keeping America’s unprotected borders open to narco-terrorists and subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry in its efforts to hook Americans on opiates.Only an unpatriotic Uniparty invested in making money, not achieving victory, could spend two decades at war, accomplish little, botch retreat, and then repopulate the homeland with nationals from the same countries we’ve been fighting. If poverty, drug use, and global threats to peace have never been worse, then the politicians are winning! Stealing taxpayers’ wealth to create crises that require stealing more from taxpayers is the normal business cycle of the ruling class. Only policy failure can produce success!
Once people grasp this perverse incentive structure for elected criminals, then seemingly inscrutable problems become easy to understand. Is it true that the U.S. government was actually investing money in the same Chinese bio-weapons lab that may have unleashed COVID-19 upon the world? Why would the feds use taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous experiments in a communist country that is arguably America’s most serious geopolitical foe? Those reasonable questions presume that officials infused with a bare modicum of ethics or morality represent us.
Ask instead: has the “health emergency” given our gangster government more authority? Has it allowed congressional criminals to spend recklessly on an ever-mutating problem? Has it widened the divide between the powerful and the powerless? If so, then aiding our enemies in the development of bio-weapons has been a rousing success. Once you accept that the Uniparty produces for mass consumption both misery and misery’s antidote, then any manner of duplicitous treachery against American citizens makes perfect sense.
Now try your hand at immigration and inflation. Thirty years ago, Americans had the strongest middle class in the world. That should have been a good thing, right? Not if your business model depends on voters being dependent on government checks! A robust middle class means economic self-sufficiency and independence. An impoverished population means an empowered government.
Seen from the vantage point of our ruling criminals, they had no other choice than to offshore American jobs in exchange for lucrative trade “deals” (and boatloads of campaign donations) that turned a small number of millionaires into billionaires while hurting everyone else.
Fewer blue-collar jobs meant lower pay, but then government could swoop in, play hero, and hike the minimum wage. Hiking the minimum wage meant even fewer jobs, but then the government could hook up the new workless class to its sweet welfare drip for life. Increased government spending increases inflation, which increases the cost of living, which increases government-imposed minimum wages, which increases the cost of doing business in America, which produces even more off-shoring of blue-collar jobs, which leaves even more Americans dependent on government welfare.
Eventually, irresponsible government spending increases inflation to such an extent that an American labor force is no longer economically viable for employers. So what is government’s solution? Mass illegal immigration, of course! And that’s a “solution” that only further reduces workers’ historically low salaries, financially crushing Americans already struggling to survive rampant, runaway inflation.
For three decades, the Uniparty has promised Americans high-paying “service economy” jobs in exchange for exporting their old jobs overseas. Instead, Americans lost their savings, economic security, future prospects, and happiness. Cheap flat-screen televisions and laundry machines that break after sixteen months have been their only rewards.
For those not hooked on the opiate of welfare, Big Pharma saw an opportunity in returning veterans struggling with pain to use actual opiates to hook the rest. In the process, the corrupt ruling class has imported so many foreign nationals that the bonds of American community and culture have been worn thin, and anyone who has had the temerity to object to this monumental transformation of society is accused of xenophobia or racism.
It’s difficult to look at all this carnage and not ask, as El Salvador’s president has, whether there is a “deliberate plan” to “destroy the U.S. from within.” Seen from the globalist cartel’s obvious goal of restoring a system of feudalism where a small number of lords can control a continent of serfs, the answer is clear: yes!
It’s now been nearly fifteen years since Republican voters began rebelling against the criminal class in D.C. The Tea Party movement sent a slew of new members to Congress in 2010, but Old Guard Republicans converted some and undermined others. Undeterred, Republican voters found an outsider in Donald Trump and put him in the White House. Again, Old Guard Republicans worked with their Uniparty pals to sabotage the Trump presidency, subvert the 2020 election with mass mail-in balloting, and deflate the passions of his ardent supporters.
Those efforts have not had their intended effect. After two impeachments, a fake insurrection, and several years of political persecution, Republican voters have never been more angry. They know that Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney are shills for an unelected Deep State, and they despise those political relics for their misplaced loyalties. They see how easily the Ben Sasses, Liz Cheneys, Adam Kinzingers, and Dan Crenshaws of the party have betrayed them, and they will not forget.
Either Republican voters will succeed in fundamentally changing the Republican Party so that it aligns with and represents their interests, or they will demolish that party and bury its remains deep in the desert. Any Republican officeholder unwilling or unable to accept this new reality is a politician with a short shelf life. The 2022 midterms may bring a “red wave,” but until the Uniparty is defeated, there will be no peace.
J. B. Shurk
Mad as Hell
The core of leftism is that we are all supposed to live for others. We’re supposed to sacrifice any wealth we have for others, so things may be equal. We’re supposed to sacrifice our brains and pretend that a circle is a square and a boy is a girl so that the intellectually inferior or mentally disturbed may feel equal. We’re supposed to wear masks forever and get experimental shots from companies with no liability or cost for what happens, so that we can say, “everybody got vaccinated.” The theme is always the same with leftists: Down with the individual, up with the collective.
The thing about leftists? They subscribe to self-sacrifice — in words and theory, but never in practice. The thing they claim we all must do is what they’re never, ever prepared to do. That’s why you won’t find any of the high profile leftists wearing masks. That’s why Obama builds a home in the midst of rising seas he claims are caused by regular people using fossil fuels (fuels that he uses in abundance, by the way). That’s why leftists are suddenly jingoists when it comes to World War III, so long as all they have to do is change their Facebook or Instagram profile page to sport a picture of the Ukraine flag.
“Look at me. I’m self-sacrificial. I’m virtuous.” This is ALL leftism is. It’s about as substantive as cotton candy.
Leftists are ALL about optics and ONLY about optics. Either they don’t believe what they claim about the alleged virtue of self-sacrifice, or they don’t think what they preach applies to them. Perhaps they think they’re special, because they proclaim the glory of self-sacrifice for all … and since they’re so virtuous in doing so, they don’t have to practice it. The rest of us do.
The arrogance of all this is so incomprehensibly evil that it MUST — I repeat MUST — lead to the biggest social psychological (and perhaps literal) upheaval and/or explosion ever seen before in the history of mankind. It is not sustainable. We cannot go on like this and will positively NOT go on like this. How it all plays out nobody can predict. But it will play out. It has probably already started, and we don’t yet recognize it. Trump is merely the tip of the iceberg of what’s coming — and what SHOULD be coming.
The built-up anger, sense of injustice, feelings of powerlessness and perfectly reasonable rage many of us feel eventually have to go somewhere. And wherever that is, the leftists who so brazenly live in hypocrisy and hubris are not going to like it.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
JFK’s War
People sometimes ask me whether there is any relevance of the Kennedy assassination to where we are today as a country. My answer is direct and unequivocal: Understanding the Kennedy assassination is essential to understanding many of the crises into which our nation has been plunged, especially in foreign affairs but also with respect to out-of-control federal spending and debt. It also provides us with what we need to do to get our nation back on the right track.
Ever since the assassination, the official lie has been that Lyndon Johnson simply continued Kennedy’s policies. That may have been true with respect to welfare-state programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and civil rights, but it has always been a lie with respect to foreign policy. In fact, it was Kennedy’s foreign policy that ended up getting him killed.
In my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I spend two chapters on “JFK’s War,” a vicious war that was waged between Kennedy and the Pentagon and the CIA. Naturally, it is not a war that is taught in American public schools, for obvious reasons. If people were to discover this war, they would be begin to see that the Pentagon and the CIA had much more reason to kill Kennedy than Lee Harvey Oswald, who had no motive whatsoever to kill him.
It was after the Cuban Missile Crisis that the military-intelligence establishment made the decision that Kennedy had to be replaced with Johnson, on grounds of protecting “national security.” The Pentagon and the CIA were livid over how Kennedy had handled the crisis and, more important, how he had resolved it. One member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Curtis LeMay, compared Kennedy’s handling of the crisis to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. He called Kennedy’s resolution of the crisis “the biggest defeat in U.S. history.”
Why were the generals so filled with rage against Kennedy? Because they had wanted him to use the crisis as an excuse to bomb and invade Cuba and replace the Castro regime with a pro-U.S. regime. Kennedy refused to do that.
Now, let that sink in for a moment. Do you see any relevance to what is happening in the world today?
Yes, the Pentagon and the CIA wanted Kennedy to do precisely what Russia is doing to Ukraine today. They wanted him to invade a sovereign and independent country and to wreak death and destruction among the Cuban people, just like Russia is doing to Ukraine today and, well, just like the Pentagon and the CIA did to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not only did Kennedy refuse to do that, he struck a deal with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in which he promised that the U.S. would not invade Cuba. In return, Khrushchev agreed to remove his nuclear missiles from Cuba and take them home.
Kennedy’s vow to Khrushchev was anathema to the Pentagon and the CIA and was, in their eyes, a grave threat to “national security.” For them, leaving Cuba permanently in communist hands left America vulnerable to defeat in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and “godless communism.”
Even before Kennedy took office, the military-intelligence establishment was absolutely hell-bent on invading Cuba and wreaking death and destruction with the intent to install another pro-U.S. dictator into power, similar to Fulgencio Batista, the corrupt and brutal dictator who had been ousted from power in the Cuban revolution.
That was what the CIA’s invasion at the Bay of Pigs was all about. In fact, it was after that invasion that the vicious war between Kennedy and the CIA got started. The CIA had told Kennedy that the invasion could succeed without U.S. air support. It was a flat-out lie. They were playing and maneuvering what they considered was a neophyte, naive president. When the invasion began faltering, they figured that Kennedy would have to provide the needed air support to avoid having the CIA’s proxy army of Cuban exiles defeated by the communists. Kennedy refused to provide the air support and the invasion went down to defeat.
Kennedy was livid. He knew he had been lied to and played and manipulated. He fired the CIA director, Allen Dulles, and his two top officials. He began downgrading the power of the CIA. He vowed to destroy the CIA.
For its part, the CIA was equally livid. In their eyes, the new neophyte president had showed weakness and cowardice in the face of the supposed international communist conspiracy to take over the world that, they were convinced, was based in Moscow, Russia — yes, the same Russia with which they are still so obsessed today.
As an aside, it should be noted that Lyndon Johnson appointed Dulles to serve on the Warren Commission, the entity ostensibly charged with investigating the Kennedy assassination, where, conveniently, he was able to control the investigation so that it never headed in the direction of the CIA and the Pentagon.
After the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon pressured Kennedy into initiating a full-scale invasion of Cuba. That was when the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed Operation Northwoods, a plan based on falsehood and fraud designed to give Kennedy a pretext to invade Cuba and do what the Russians are currently doing in Ukraine. Kennedy said no.
Insofar as the Pentagon and the CIA were concerned, Kennedy’s agreement with the communists to leave Cuba permanently in communist hands to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis was bad enough. But it was Kennedy’s Peace Speech at American University in early June 1963 that sealed his fate.
In that speech, Kennedy announced that the United States would no longer have a hostile relationship with the Soviet Union. It would henceforth be a peaceful and friendly relationship. Remarkably, Khrushchev was on the same page as Kennedy. He began persuading Castro to begin thinking the same way. In fact, I’ll bet most Americans don’t know that at the moment he was assassinated in Dallas, Kennedy had a private emissary secretly having lunch with Castro in an attempt to restore normal relations between the U.S. and Cuba. But the Pentagon and the CIA most certainly knew about it.
In other words, Kennedy was taking America in a totally different direction from the one desired by the military-intelligence establishment. If he won the 1964 presidential election, which was likely, he would have had five more years to implement his new vision for America.
And don’t forget: All this was taking place while the Soviets were still brutally occupying Eastern European countries!
During those five years, the Pentagon and the CIA would have had nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs, and they knew it. No more Cold War. No Vietnam War. No invasion of Cuba. No more hostility against the communist world. JFK even proposed a joint U.S.-Soviet trip to the moon.
Moreover, Kennedy would never have permitted the Pentagon and the CIA to go into the Middle East and begin killing people. Thus, under Kennedy, there would never have been terrorist retaliation, including the 9/11 attacks, and, thus, no war on terrorism. No invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
And no more NATO! After all, why would NATO be necessary in a world of peaceful coexistence between the U.S. and Russia? Don’t forget that its purpose was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. If Kennedy had prevailed in his war with the national-security establishment, NATO would have gone the way of the dodo bird.
Which means: No NATO absorption of Eastern European countries, including Ukraine. No threat to put U.S nuclear missies on Russia’s border and, therefore, no Russia invasion of Ukraine.
In fact, it is a virtual certainty that there would have been no more U.S. national-security state. Don’t forget that the the Cold War was the reason the federal government was converted to a national-security state in the first place. Given that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA would have been spending their time twiddling their thumbs under Kennedy, it is highly likely that the American people would have demanded the restoration of the limited-government system on which our nation had been founded.
Is understanding the Kennedy assassination essential to getting our nation back on the right track? You bet it is. Understanding his assassination provides us with the direction in which we need to head at this point in our nation’s existence–toward liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world. His assassination need not have been in vain.
“Hire me Because of my Race” is not Admirable
Anyone who ACCEPTS an appointment to be a Supreme Court justice because of her race or gender is neither decent nor intelligent enough to be a Supreme Court justice.
This is why no analysis of puppet Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court is even required.
Her nomination should be dead on arrival. It won’t be, of course; because we truly do live under institutional racism now.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 