Do you wince when you hear someone rip “capitalism” for some alleged evil, then propose a new government program to correct it? Are you frustrated when hearing people demand the soaking of the rich to relieve the poor? Are you frustrated further when realizing the poor are still poor after government has intervened?
Are you exasperated at the media for lying about origins of the US-Ukraine war on Russia or dismissing the reality in Gaza? Do you have a sinking feeling when you see MAGA supporters dump on Elon for criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill?
Do you curse the public schools when Mark Dice takes to the street and interviews random passersby who come up empty about basic American history or the value of gold coins? Do you see societal decay in the works when talented people are sidelined for mediocrities because of race or gender? Are you wondering why people study economics if a president can violate sound theory and impose tariffs as a tactic to save American jobs?
Do you want to scream when you hear Trump calling for the Fed to lower interest rates or threatening a government take-over of the Fed? Do you want to scream again remembering how popular Ron Paul was with voters when he called for ending the Fed?
Knowing you’re not alone doesn’t help much, but there might be a better way to view the propagandized, coercive scene. Most people have to earn a living, and they do it by trading their time and talent for what passes for money. They don’t do it with a first-hand, in-depth analysis of what’s going on in Washington—that’s the job of the bought-and-sold legacy media that they’ve learned to distrust. They don’t have the time, skills, or energy to research it in-depth. If their jobs are stressful they might seek relief doing something different, but that excludes introducing more stress into their lives, such as listening to talking heads or reading about politics.
Butler Tells Them the Cold Truth
That profound book you’re working on will not reach most people because most people don’t read profound books. Your choir might read it, and—if enough do—it could make the Times bestseller list. But the political machine rolls on regardless.
Consider the books exposing in bloody detail the military-intelligence-complex. This list is long and damning, but far from complete. What impact have they had? One of them—War is a Racket, written by two-time Medal of Honor winner Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler—opens with these words:
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. (emphasis mine)
Published in 1935, his book is based on speeches he gave during a nationwide tour in the 1930s. It was condensed by Reader’s Digest, which helped transmit his message. It’s available on Amazon Kindle for less than a dollar. It can be read in one sitting. Given his background and the clarity and power of his writing, his message about war corruption could not have been missed, yet today it’s just another anti-war classic most people have never heard of because it had no influence on government policy. Turned out, war solved FDR’s unemployment problem when his Keynesian New Deal had let him down.
Ellsberg Exposes the War Machine
Not included on the MIC book list was Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, the first installment of which was published in the NY Times on Sunday, June 13, 1971 under the title “Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement.”
The article was based on a 7,000-page, top-secret Defense Department history of American involvement in Vietnam leaked to the newspaper by disillusioned former Pentagon employee Daniel Ellsberg. To keep the scoop secret, the Times kept it from most of its own employees and rented a suite at a Manhattan hotel where a small hive of reporters feverishly parsed the leaked information.
Shortly after President Nixon saw the article, he accused the Times of treason.
By Monday night, Attorney General John N. Mitchell had spent a furious 24 hours assessing legal options for preventing further publication of the Pentagon Papers, which the Times had teased as a multi-part series.
On June 15, Nixon obtained an injunction to block further publication, citing national security risks. Other newspapers—including the Washington Post—defied Nixon’s injunction and began publishing excerpts of their own. On June 29, 1971, Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska obtained a copy and read 4,000 pages into Congressional Record, making it available to the public. Nixon’s fight against the Papers led to a landmark free-speech case that became the focus of the 2017 Spielberg movie, The Post.
In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Court avowed that, “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.... The Government ‘thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” Regarding the Times and the Washington Post, the Court agreed with the lower courts that “the Government had not met that burden.” On June 30, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the papers.
Later, Ellsberg was indicted on 12 felony counts under the 1917 Espionage Act and faced up to 115 years in prison, but the case was dismissed after Judge Matthew Byrne discovered White House “plumbers” had illegally broken into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist ’s office.
Conclusion
How confident are you today that US courts would side with Ellsberg and the First Amendment? Or other government whistleblowers? Ever wonder why Edward Snowden is still living in Russia? How many newspapers published legal challenges to the Big Pharma covid narrative? Why were challengers routinely punished with loss of jobs? As Ryan McMaken has written,
It has become abundantly clear that the federal government—and especially the executive branch—regards legal and constitutional limits on federal power as mere inconveniences to be ignored. Debates over constitutionality are now, for the most part, a relic of an earlier age.
What might have been a trend toward freedom with Butler and Ellsberg turned out to be another fleeting moment. Perhaps the best strategy for survival is not to become a news junky but to follow the survivalist’s credo of self-sufficiency. Don’t count on a government approach to make America great again. Stay far away from its wars but do listen to Tulsi’s warning about nuclear war. Don’t get lost in day-to-day minutiae. Pick your gurus advisedly. The federal government is pursuing a path of self-destruction with its unlimited spending facilitated by the Fed and its counterfeit money. When government checks bounce, make sure you can live without them.
