“The hardest thing is not to change course, not to change policy, but first and foremost to change the way we think.”

— Edgar Morin

The real crisis of our time is not economic, social, or partisan in nature. It is intellectual. For generations, people have been conditioned to fear freedom and mistake dependence for security.

Anyone who observes the political and media developments of recent years will recognize a recurring pattern: For every problem, there are calls for more government. For every bureaucratic failure, there are demands for even more government. For every restriction of freedom, the next restriction is presented as the solution.

The state lives on a fundamental belief: that some people have the right to rule over others. This claim is rarely questioned, even though it is not based on any moral principle that could apply equally to all people. Actions that would be forbidden to an individual are suddenly considered legitimate as soon as they are carried out in the name of an authority, a parliament, or a government.

Domination does not begin with violence. It begins in the mind. It begins the moment a person believes others have the right to dispose of their life. Every political order ultimately rests on this inner consent.

A majority does not make injustice right. Millions of votes do not transform coercion into freedom. A ballot box possesses no magical power that overrides moral standards.

Modern statism presents itself as reason, but in reality, it is the systematic disenfranchisement of the individual. It replaces personal responsibility with regulations, self-organization with control, and voluntary cooperation with political administration. Its greatest achievement is not to liberate people, but to convince them that they could not exist without it.

This development is particularly evident in language. Those who define people solely through administrative categories replace living identities with political constructs. Language becomes a tool of administration, no longer an expression of cultural reality.

Freedom does not arise from new laws, new parties, or new rulers. Freedom arises where people stop looking for rulers. It begins with the realization that no human being has an inherent right to dispose of another.

A free person does not disobey because they want to rebel. They disobey because they understand that responsibility cannot be delegated. They act out of insight rather than fear, out of conscience rather than subservience.

Anarchy does not mean chaos. Chaos arises where people relinquish their responsibility. Anarchy means the absence of domination and the presence of personal responsibility. It is not a political utopia, but the consistent rejection of any claim by one person to power over another.

The crucial question, therefore, is not: Who should rule us?

The crucial question is: Why should anyone rule at all?

From Huter der Irminsul

Federal prosecutors have charged senior NIH virologist Vincent Munster (originally from the Netherlands) and his junior colleague Claude Kwe (Cameroon) with conspiracy to smuggle biological materials into the United States and with making false statements to federal authorities. According to the criminal complaint, the two scientists returned from the Republic of Congo in January carrying a large black case that they allegedly told Customs and Border Protection officers contained diagnostic and testing equipment. Federal investigators later discovered 113 vials packed inside Styrofoam coolers inside the case. Of the first twenty vials tested by the FBI, seventeen reportedly contained deactivated mpox virus, one contained chickenpox virus, and two contained human DNA. Both men worked at Rocky Mountain Laboratories, one of the federal government’s premier Biosafety Level 4 facilities, where researchers study some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens. If convicted, they face up to five years in prison.

On its face, this sounds like a story about improperly transported laboratory specimens and a customs declaration.

It isn’t.

More…

A piece of truth from a post here:

“What little courage must a man have to allow others to tell him what to believe and what is true. How sad to allow oneself to be a slave to the masses. A man must do his best to learn the truth of things in a world filled with falsehood and illusions. No one else can do that for him.”

What little courage a nation must have when it allows another country to tell their people what to believe and what is true. If the people of the United States would look after the issues impacting this country and its people, we might actually be able to move forward.

Instead, our government is bought by Israel, the Deep State opposition is controlled by the WEF, Islam and China, and our businesses have been usurped by India and AI to devastate our jobs. Black Americans are used to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy. They are also used to generate fear, increase racism and maintain a two-tiered justice system.

Is it only courage that we lack? What about Sacred Honor, morality and faith? Regardless of our weaknesses in character, the problem is the same: why are we not using critical thinking to see the truth?

The truth is that this country is both fiscally and morally bankrupt. The solution is valid elections but the truth is that the evil that controls what passes for “our” government has no intention of letting the people control the voting process. The truth is that we will never regain our economic freedom, employment security or Liberty without understanding the sacrifices that would be necessary.

Courage is required but understanding is the first step. Once we understand that evil reigns over all aspects of our lives, then we need the courage with a firm reliance of Divine Providence to ask for Sacred Honor to fight and win this war. Are these mere words or a call to action?

From Vox Popoli: Steve Keen points out how the economic models that Western military strategists are using are outdated and incorrect Neoclassical economic models that are going to make the ramifications of the war in the Middle East considerably worse regardless of the outcome for the US military:

The Trump-Epstein-Netanyahu War could cause more deaths than any war in history, including World War II. This will not be via its direct casualties, but via deaths caused by its economic and agricultural consequences across the planet. For someone who exalts in superlatives, Trump may be responsible for causing more deaths than any previous tyrant in human history.

This is because the world economic system resembles Trump himself: its self-image is one of robust power, but its inner nature is one of incredible fragility. One month ago, many people would not even have heard of the Strait of Hormuz—which Trump, in his bravado, has just referred to as “the Strait of Trump”. Now everyone knows where it is—if not precisely why it matters. We are about to learn the hard way, via the consequences of cutting off this vital artery in the global economy’s circulatory system.

This should have been common knowledge. But, just like Trump himself, our understanding of the global economy is based on an elaborate set of delusions. I am looking forward to the howls from mainstream “Neoclassical” economists when they hear that I blame most of those delusions on them.

Neoclassical economics has always lulled us into a false sense of security by its asinine assumption that most industries are “competitive”, as they define competition. A “competitive” industry, according to Neoclassical economics, is one in which there are a multitude of producers producing a homogeneous product. This definition is doubly delusional: most industries are dominated by a small number of very large firms; and all products are highly differentiated.

In the Neoclassical world, taking out a few producers would have only a trivial impact on total production, because there are thousands—millions!—of producers, and every producer’s output is a perfect substitute for all other producers’ output. In the real world, most industries are dominated by a handful of large firms, and one firm’s output cannot be easily substituted for another.

We are now finding this out the hard way in the TEN War: Venezuelan oil cannot replace oil from the Persian Gulf, and the key facilities which have been damaged—such as Qatar’s LNG processing plants—can only be repaired by a handful of companies.

Worse, those repairs will take years, whereas the canonical “supply and demand diagram” of Neoclassical economists completely ignores time. In the Neoclassical world, if you want to produce higher output, just increase the price and, hey presto, you move up the supply curve and produce a higher quantity.

In the real world, if you are 25 percent below the desired level of output of LNG—as the world is now, with not only the wartime destruction Qatar’s plants, but also the impact of tropical cyclone Narelle on Australia’s LNG plants—then it will take several years to move up that “supply curve”.

It’s insane to go into what is an industrial war of attrition with knowingly faulty strategic models, because it guarantees that no matter what decisions you are making, they are going to be suboptimal at best, with real potential for catastrophe.

h/t WRSA