COMMENTARY / OPINION
The Unholy Alliance Between George Soros and Pope Francis By George Neumayr
October 23, 2023 – The election of a liberal Jesuit to the papacy thrilled Democrats in the United States, whose unholy alliance with the Catholic left goes back many decades. Barack Obama, one of the pope’s most prominent supporters, has long been a beneficiary of that alliance. The faculty at Jesuit Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., ranked as one of the top donors to his campaign.
In a grim irony, Obama, whose presidency substantially eroded religious freedom in America, rose to power not in spite of the Catholic Church but because of it. The archdiocese of Chicago helped bankroll his radicalism in the 1980s. As he recounts in his memoirs, he began his work as a community organizer in the rectory rooms of Holy Rosary parish on Chicago’s South Side. The Alinskyite organization for which he worked — the Developing Communities Project — received tens of thousands of dollars from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.
Obama was close to the late Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. A proponent of the “Seamless Garment” movement within the Catholic Church in the 1980s, a movement that downplayed abortion and emphasized political liberalism, Bernardin was drawn to the socialism and relativism of the liberal elite. He was so “gay-friendly” that he requested that the “Windy City Gay Chorus” perform at his funeral. He embodied Obama’s conception of a “good” bishop and one can see in his admixture of left-wing politics and relativistic nonjudgmental theology a foreshadowing of the rise of Pope Francis.
The US Empire’s PR Crisis in Gaza By Caitlin Johnstone
October 23, 2023 – The US-centralized empire is a giant network of allies, partners and assets spanning the entire globe. Many of the nations in this network, such as Israel, have strong ideologies and values systems that the empire must cooperate with to obtain their loyalty. But the empire itself has no ideology or values — it values nothing but planetary domination. The empire’s motives are no more ideological than the motives of a mugger are ideological.
motives of a mugger are ideological.
So the empire has no ideology, but it is held together by cooperation with individual governments who do. The problem this creates is that sometimes the ideologies of those states cause them to do things that go against the interests of the empire as a whole. Israel can just up and decide to commit a genocidal massacre in front of everyone. Saudi Arabia can decide it’s going to dismember a Washington Post reporter with a bone saw. Proxies in Ukraine can keep saying Nazi things and sporting Nazi insignia in public. They do these things because unlike the top brass in the imperial power structure they are guided by ideology, with no regard for the need to preserve the empire’s image as a “rules-based international order”.
This often creates a PR crisis for the empire, because the public will cease consenting to the network of alliances, partners and assets if it becomes sufficiently aware of the depravity needed to hold it all together. This is typically easy to resolve because the US empire has the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the history of civilization, but that propaganda machine is operated by individuals — individuals who may have learned about Palestinian rights at university, or who were disgusted about the way their employer ran cover for Israel’s murder of Shireen Abu Akleh only to find out Israel did it and was lying. So they don’t always play along with the imperial machine in their reporting, thereby exacerbating the empire’s PR crisis.
Rothbard, Milei and the New Right in Argentina By Fernando Chiocca
October 23, 2023 – Since I recognized almost twenty years ago that no person or institution has the right to initiate aggression, now is the first time I can tell a normie what my political stance is without them having no clue what I am talking about. Now I can say that I am an anarchocapitalist without causing much surprise, as a large part of the public now has some idea of what this term means.
This is thanks to the fascinating electoral success of Javier Milei, an anarchocapitalist who has a chance of becoming the next president of Argentina in tomorrow’s presidential election. Milei has five mastiff dogs that he calls “four-legged children” and named one of them Murray, in honor of the economist Murray Rothbard, a great inspiration of his. Rothbard, a dean of the Austrian school of economics, is also the father of modern libertarianism, which he called anarchocapitalism. We anarchocapitalists are aware that any form of state is criminal, and any and all services it provides can and must be provided by the free market. Rothbard provided the ethical and economic justifications for anarchocapitalism, refuting all myths used to legitimize the existence of the state.
Nevertheless, in addition to providing the framework of anarchocapitalism, Rothbard also laid out a strategy describing how only someone like Milei could break down the barriers of respectable (social democratic) political discourse imposed on us by the Marxist Left and reemerge a libertarian Right political force. Rothbard refers to the old American Right, which in the first half of the twentieth century was opposed to the socialist programs implemented in the US and its foreign wars and was “for a restoration of the liberty of the old republic, of a government strictly limited to the defense of the rights of private property.” It was not a revolutionary Right. In fact, the revolution had already happened with the New Deal, and the revolution had been a socialist one. In the same way, Peronism was a socialist revolution that in eighty years transformed Argentina, which was a free country and one of the richest in the world, into a poor country. This means that a conservative stance serves to preserve socialism, while socialism continues to advance when socialists are in power. Therefore, as libertarian novelist Garet Garrett said, “The revolution was, and therefore nothing less than a counterrevolution is needed to take the country back. Behold then, not a ‘conservative,’ but a radical Right.” Agustín Laje, author, political scientist, and ally of Milei who has strived to understand and explain the new global Right, agrees:
“This New Right has a revolutionary ethos, as opposed to a left that is beginning to embrace a conservative ethos. I know this might sound odd, but in what sense do I say it? If we take “conservative” as that which wants to preserve a status quo, the left is the one who today want to preserve a status quo in Argentina, while the right is trying to destroy this status quo.”
All Wars Are Bankers Wars [Video 43:33] By Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 23, 2023 – The video above features a 2013 documentary, “All Wars Are Bankers Wars,” written and narrated by Michael Rivero,1 founder of whatreallyhappened.com. As explained by Rivero, all wars can be traced back to the private central bankers.
“The more you study this, the more you’ll realize that ALL wars are wars for the private central bankers,” he says. American soldiers have fought and died in wars initiated for no other purpose than to force private central banking on nations that didn’t want them.
Usury — The Birth of Money From Money
The philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) once said:
“The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.
And this term ‘usury,’ which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money, because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of making money this is the most unnatural.”
What Aristotle described is the business model of all central banks. They make money out of thin air by lending money at interest, and in the process, they drain a nation of its wealth. The first bankers war example illustrated in the film is that of the American Revolution, fought between 1775 and 1783.
The GOP is at War with Its Base by Jeff Crouere
(Oct. 22, 2023) — For many years, the leadership of the Republican Party has been at war with the grassroots activists who work tirelessly on its behalf. This division has been apparent ever since Donald Trump descended the escalator in 2015 and announced his presidential campaign.
The party establishment worked overtime to deny the nomination to Trump, yet the Republican voters overwhelmingly supported him. The resentment toward Trump and his supporters continued during his presidency and still exists today.
Sadly, there is little chance this divide will be bridged anytime soon. The latest example occurred last week as congressional Republicans were attempting to elect a House Speaker.
The overwhelming favorite of the party’s base was U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH). He was the co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus and has served admirably as the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. His history as a stalwart conservative earned the trust of grassroots Republicans.
Unfortunately, a contingent of moderate Republicans were steadfast in opposing Jordan. Despite their office phone lines burning up with calls from Republicans throughout the country, these obstinate opponents of Jordan refused to budge. By the third and final vote, 25 House Republicans opposed Jordan.
This group includes the type of establishment Republicans who are steadfastly opposed to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. According to Christopher Bedford, Executive Editor of CommonSenseSociety.org, these Republicans “would rather the speakership remain vacant than elect Jordan; they would rather break Congress than elevate someone they’re not confident they can control. They believe money for Ukraine and other business-as-usual items are worth permanent institutional damage.”
