We’re getting close to the end of vote counting. Harris will likely fall 6.5 million votes shy of Biden’s 81.3 million mark (which, as I have said, is an unbelievable number, as in I don’t believe it). Trump, in contrast, will likely increase his vote count in 2024 by 3 million votes over the mark he set in 2020. Where did 6.5 million Democrat voters go? How many of them voted for Trump? I may address this question in a future essay.
In earlier reporting, I noted that Trump won 58 percent of the electoral college and that he won every swing state. I should have reported that he won 31 of 50 states, or 62 percent of the states. He is still sitting around 50 percent of the popular vote despite Democrats running up the vote counts on the East and West Coasts. There aren’t many votes left to count, albeit there have been enough to overturn some House races in Democrats favor.
The Red shift
We are being told that this election was not a landslide. But as one can see from the map above, every state shift Red. The results of this election indicate a massive political realignment, one made even more dramatic by all the obstacles that stood in Trump’s way. Trump won in the face of being outspent 3-to-1 by the Harris campaign, having been impeached twice, four criminal indictments that contained dozens of felony counts (election subversion, fraud, obstruction), a guilty verdict on 34 counts in one of those cases, a civil suit concerning defamation and sexual assault, near total opposition from the corporate media, and the widespread public shaming of those who expressed their support for his candidacy.
The election was a referendum on all of that and more. Tens of millions went to the polls and rendered their verdict in favor of Trump. But they also voted against Democrats. There are a lot of tangibles (mass immigration, inflation, etc.), but there is an overall mood in the country against the woke progressivism and identity politics and elitism the Democrats represent. As a result, not only did Trump win the Presidency, but the Republicans recaptured the Senate and kept the House.
Here’s my take on what is going on in electoral politics (and why I was so confident Trump would win). When the Democratic Party sold out to big corporate donors, especially with the New Democrat strategy of Bill Clinton (a strategy also pursued by Tony Blair and New Labour in the UK), it shifted its popular allegiance from the working class to the middle class. The Democratic Party had to turn to identity politics to build a coalition made up of the credentialed, the poor, and the disaffected. With the emergence of populism, the Republican Party shifted away from its allegiance to the corporate donor class and towards working class and rural people. The public had a back-to-back comparison of the two parties, and preferring populism over progressivism, put Trump back in the White House. To be sure, both parties are capitalist parties and still represent the interests of the real ruling class—the capitalist class. But in relation to the common man, the parties flipped loyalties and Democrats paid the price.
Freedom and Reason has surpassed 12 thousand and approaching 6.5 thousand visitors this year. Those aren’t huge numbers, but they’re not insignificant, either—far more views than anything I’ve published in an academic journal! This is the best year ever for the platform (and we another month to go). I appreciate you taking the time to visit Freedom and Reason and read my content. Thank you!
Growth metrics
I have had requests to migrate my blog to Substack. I set up an account on Substack a while back, but never loaded any essays. Maybe I will in the future. But WordPress is working out for me right now. All my material here is free. If you subscribe, you will not be charged. A subscription means you get notified when I post content.
Why is Freedom and Reason free? I established the platform to get around paywalls, gatekeepers, and the time it takes from submission to publication. Moreover, publishers have made money from my work published in journals, encyclopedia, and edited volumes, and I have not received a penny for that work. Academics do that work for tenure and promotion (such are the arbitrary rules of bureaucracy and religion). After that, why not make one’s scholarship available to the public that pays his salary?
Teaching at a medium sized public university is a modest living, but it allows a fellow time to write and put food on the table. This exercise in public sociology is an act of giving back. Does have effect? Probably not much by itself. But in terms of a force multiplier, just look at the political landscape. It takes a multitude pulling in the same direction to alter the political landscape.
“Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1782
I saw a clip of Dr. Leonard Coldwell on Facebook talking about the medical profession and shared it. A Facebook friend asked me if I believed what Coldwell was saying. I told my friend that I would blog about it. The short answer is that there is something to what Coldwell is saying. But a longer answer is required to fully address the matter.
I am not here to judge Coldwell. I know very little about him other than the mainstream medical science establishment has determined that he is problematical and social media platforms have been censoring him. My aim in this essay is to look into what he said in the video clip—that the modern medical profession is not interested in curing or preventing illness but only in treating it—and see if there is anything to his claims. He argues that there is no money to be made from curing or preventing illness; on the other hand, there is plenty of money to be made from addressing symptoms. He moreover makes the claim that physicians are at a high risk of suicide, and that’s because they come to realize that they have been pulled into a profession that is interested not in the wellbeing of those seeking help but in generating trillions of dollars by perpetuating disease.
Andrew Carnegie
Coldwell’s account concerns Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant who became one of the wealthiest individuals in the United States during the Gilded Age (John D. Rockefeller plays a role in this, as well, which I will come to later). Carnegie played a significant role in the development of medical education in America and thus contributed in a signifiant way to the trajectory of the medical industry. The story one usually hears about this is a celebration of philanthropic endeavors, but as usual there’s more to the story. Whatever else Coldwell says about medicine, he is onto something here.
The story begins in 1908, when the American Medical Association (AMA) and Council on Medical Education (CME) asked the Carnegie Foundation to investigate the allegedly appalling state of medical education. The standard narrative goes like this: back then, medical schools across the nation operated with minimal standards, lacked rigorous curricula, and were poorly regulated; graduates from these schools were inadequately prepared to practice medicine. So, Carnegie, along with other philanthropic industrialists of the time, funded initiatives to reform the education. This was one of the many blooms of progressivism.
One of Carnegie’s key contributions was the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, established in 1905. This drew the AMA and CME to Carnegie. Under the leadership of Abraham Flexner, the Carnegie Foundation funded the Flexner Report (1910), which evaluated medical schools across the US and Canada. The report purported to have exposed deficiencies in medical education and called for numerous reforms, including the establishment of higher standards for admission, curriculum requirements, and clinical training (see The Flexner Report ― 100 Years Later).
Abraham Flexner
The Flexner Report had a transformative effect on medical education in the United States. It led to the closure of medical schools and encouraged the development of more rigorous programs that aligned with “scientific” approaches to medicine. While improving certain aspects of medical education, the main effect of the Flexner Report was to reinforce a system that emphasized the management of disease rather than its cure and prevention. Medical professionals were trained to rely heavily on pharmaceutical treatments, surgical interventions, and technological solutions, rather than addressing the root causes of diseases, particularly in a holistic manner.
The Flexner reforms thus professionalized medicine in a way that centered the role of the physician as a highly trained specialist focused more on the technical aspects of treatment rather than the overall wellbeing of the patient. This approach turned medical care into a business that emphasized disease management, often with costly interventions. The medical model that emerged from these reforms conditioned physicians to ignore factors like lifestyle; doctors were trained to treat diseases as isolated conditions rather than considering the behavioral, environmental, and social factors associated with health, illness, and wellbeing. Furthermore, the reforms led to a consolidation of medical schools and the closure of smaller, often alternative institutions, which reduced diversity of medical education, limiting the incorporation of holistic healing practices that may have been more focused on treating diseases in a non-invasive way.
Let’s go a deeper. Throughout history, the medical field has been marked by a tension between two competing approaches to healthcare. On one side are the allopaths who in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries employed aggressive methods such as bloodletting, the use of toxic agents like arsenic and mercury, and radical surgeries to treat disease. These techniques, grounded more in “scientific” theory than empirical evidence, aimed to forcibly expel illness from the body. To be sure, the specific methods of the allopaths have changed over the decades (arsenic and mercury have been replaced by antibiotics and antiviral agents), but the aggressive approach to medicine at the expense of healing and prevention remains the central characteristic of allopathy. On the other side are the naturopaths, who advocate time-tested treatments based on empirical observation. Their methods, including the use of plants, nutrition, and practices that support the body’s natural defenses, emphasize healing from within.
These two approaches rest on different but complementary theories of disease. The germ theory of disease, foundational to modern allopathic medicine, posits that microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses are the primary causes of illness. Following from this, allopathy focuses on diagnosing and treating diseases by targeting their specific pathogenic agents through interventions like antibiotics, antivirals, vaccines, and surgical procedures. Allopaths tend to isolate disease causation to external agents, often neglecting the broader environmental and social conditions that create fertile ground for the spread of pathogens. For instance, while medications address immediate threats, germ theory’s narrow focus overlooks systemic factors like overcrowding, poor sanitation, or unequal access to healthcare that perpetuate disease vulnerability. For example, much of the reduction in death and serious illness associated with various pathogens, such as measles, is less attributable to vaccines than to improving living conditions brought about by growing affluence and the successes of the workers movement.
In contrast, the terrain theory of disease, aligned with naturopathy, emphasizes the internal and external environments that influence an individual’s health. Terrain theory argues that pathogens are not the sole or even the primary cause of illness but become harmful when the body’s internal “terrain” is weakened due to imbalances in immune function, nutrition, and stress. Naturopathy recognizes that the external environment and social factors are major factors in disease production; health is profoundly shaped by chronic stress, living conditions, access to clean water and air, socioeconomic realities such as poverty. These intersect to create conditions in which pathogens can thrive. In practice, naturopathy prioritizes prevention and wellness by addressing these underlying factors, promoting dietary changes, and stress management (and the elimination of stressors), as well as advocating for systemic reforms to improve the broader environmental and social conditions that undermine public health.
John D. Rockefeller
The competition between these theories and approaches persisted until the Flexner Report. Together, these perspectives suggested that, while germ theory and allopathy are effective in acute interventions, terrain theory and naturopathy provides a holistic framework for fostering resilience and addressing the root causes of disease. However, while both schools of thought had profitable practices, the rise of petrochemicals and the advent of synthetic materials hinted at lucrative possibilities in pharmaceutical production and other artificial therapies, and the drive to maximize profits found allopathy and the germ theory of disease to be the best fit for the medical industrial model. John D. Rockefeller recognized the financial potential in allopathic medicine and encourage Andrew Carnegie to join him in creating an environment in which that potential could be realized. It was Carnegie who commissioned Abraham Flexner to assess medical schools across North America and the prevailing medical practices of the day. (The Flexner Report of 1910 and Its Impact on Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Psychiatry in North America in the 20th Century.)
One focus of the Flexner Report was on discrediting naturopathic medicine, branding it as “quackery,” which capitalism’s money power and the emerging regulatory apparatus seized upon to push naturopathy and the terrain theory of disease to the margins. Medical schools offering natural treatments faced closure unless they conformed to the allopathic model, losing accreditation and funding if they resisted. As a result, countless doctors lost their livelihoods, and hospitals and schools rooted in naturopathy were shuttered. Rockefeller, under the guise of philanthropy, donated tens of millions of dollars to colleges and hospitals, ensuring compliance with the report’s recommendations and building up the infrastructure to change medicine from the ground up. He established the General Education Board to oversee medical education, effectively centralizing control over the profession.
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies entrenched their influence by incentivizing doctors to prescribe their products, creating a system where quick prescriptions replaced holistic patient care. Organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) further entrenched allopathy’s dominance, lobbying government to marginalize natural practices. Regulatory hurdles imposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made it nearly impossible for natural remedies to gain approval, as herbs and supplements could not be patented and thus lacked the financial backing necessary to meet the FDA’s costly standards.
This corporatized system is the structure of modern medicine, which, while effective in many areas, prioritizes symptom management over addressing root causes, ensuring a steady profit stream from managing chronic disease. Rising healthcare costs and insurance mandates exacerbate the issue, creating a cycle of dependency that benefits pharmaceutical companies and entrenched medical institutions.
As I have argued in past writings, just as the military-industrial complex needs war to sell weapons and military hardware, so the medical-industrial complex needs sickness to sell pharmaceuticals, surgeries, and therapies. And the foods industry assists in maintaining an unhealthy population. The problem is systemic, a vast structure driven by profit over patient wellbeing.
Consider, for example, diabetes rates in the United States, which have increased significantly over the past few decades. Over the last two decades, the number of American adults with diabetes has more than doubled, rising from around eleven million to over 23 million (according to the CDC). When including undiagnosed cases, the total prevalence exceeds 37 million people, representing more than eleven percent of the entire US population. If we don’t change course, by 2025, projections suggest that more than 50 million Americans could have diabetes, with around 15 percent of the population expected to have a diagnosed case.
What has produced this health crisis? Poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle among other things. There’s no money in addressing these problems. But there is money to be made from Ozempic, a diabetes treatment developed by Novo Nordisk, which is projected to enjoy significant revenue growth due to the expanding use of its product for type two diabetes and off-label applications like weight loss. Sales of the drugs are in the billions.
The medical-industrial complex, far from improving the health of the populace is a cause of disease and death. A 2016 analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimated that medical errors cause 250,000 deaths annually, making it the third leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease and cancer. This estimate is based on hospital data and includes errors such as misdiagnoses, medication mistakes, surgical errors, and communication breakdowns within the healthcare system.
A 1998 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimated that serious adverse drug reactions caused approximately 106,000 deaths annually in hospitalized patients. More recent estimates likely exceed this figure due to the increased use and overprescribing of medications, particularly in an aging population. The Lown Institute has documented the harms of overtreatment, with estimates suggesting thousands of deaths occur annually due to inappropriate therapies, such as unnecessary stent placements, back surgeries, or aggressive end-of-life interventions.
Carnegie did not explicitly label himself as a progressive in the political sense, but his beliefs and actions aligned with progressive ideals—and this includes his support for eugenics. Carnegie funded the Carnegie Institution for Science, which included the Eugenics Record Office, a center for eugenics research led by Charles Davenport. Likewise, the Rockefeller Foundation funded studies at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, which later became associated with Nazi racial policies. Eugenics and progressivism share an interest in improving society through rational planning and scientific management. To draw attention away from the real causes of inequality, mainly the exploitation of labor under capitalism, many progressives embraced eugenics as a way to address social issues like crime, disease, and poverty, believing that selective breeding could eliminate the undesirable traits they asserted as the real cause of these problems.
I raise the matter of eugenics to help the reader understand the motives of industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller, but also to return to one of the central themes on Freedom and Reason, and that is the dark reality of progressivism, with its emphasis on expertise and social engineering and the necessity of coercive policies (see, for example, On the Ethics of Compulsory Vaccination; “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”; Biden’s Biofascist Regime). In the pursuit of the corporate state, individuals lives are rather insignificant (forever wars testify to this). The medical industry kills, maims, and sickens millions of people every year, but this is of little concern if there is a profit to be made. The focus on the individual as the center of disease and other maladies rather than the social conditions that underpin what are really social problems functions to obscure the role that the capitalist mode of production plays in human misery. Fixing the problems of the capitalist mode of production beyond ameliorating some of its worst excesses is more than unprofitable; it means jettison the system altogether.
Finally, Coldwell’s claim that doctors have a higher suicide rate compared to the general population is accurate. This phenomenon has been well-documented in various studies and is a significant concern within the medical community. According to research, the suicide rate among male physicians is 1.5 times higher than the general male population, while female physicians have a rate that is 2-4 times higher than the general female population. Estimates suggest that 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually in the United States. This is true for nurses, as well. In a 2020 study published in JAMA Psychiatry, researchers found that the suicide rate among nurses was 23.8 per 100,000 compared to 16.1 per 100,000 in the general population.
Bobby Kennedy, Jr.
True reform requires public awareness and a willingness to challenge the status quo. By embracing natural remedies, prioritizing preventative care, and educating themselves about their health, individuals can begin to reclaim autonomy over their well-being. This is what Robert Kennedy, Jr’s “Make America Healthy Again” (or MAHA) campaign endeavors to accomplish. It does not mean turning our backs on the strengths of allopathic medicine. It means bringing theory and practice under the control of a democratically-controlled public health system focused on diet, the environment, and social conditions, and this means moving away from the for-profit medical model towards a community-based model based on a holistic approach to health and wellbeing.
“We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months. The reflection is awful, and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavilings of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.” —Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
I addressed this several months ago in the essay Am I Rightwing? Not Even Close. I have addressed the matter elsewhere, as well. With Republicans in command of the federal government (as well as most state governments), I think it is useful to remind readers of the importance of understanding the meaning behind the terms we use not only to defend ourselves against mischaracterizations, but to also understand the promise of November 5, 2024. This essay will clarify the meanings of “right-wing” and “left-wing” to expose the propaganda project that confuses the populace over the tendencies that either advance or hinder the life-chances of the common man. (For another essay on this matter, see Manufacturing Estrangement: The Confused Labeling of Political Standpoints.)
The original meaning of right-wing traces back to the French Revolution (1789-1799), where political factions were symbolically aligned by seating in the Estates-General and later the National Assembly. Those seated to the right of the president supported the monarchy, the established social hierarchy, and traditional institutions like the church and aristocracy. In this context, being right-wing signified a commitment to order, hierarchy, and the preservation of longstanding cultural and political systems against revolutionary change.
Right-wing politics emphasizes values such as charismatic and traditional authority, cultural continuity, and respect for inherited traditions. It is often associated with the defense of the belief in natural hierarchies, i.e., the rightness of social stratification, and skepticism toward egalitarian or redistributive efforts that disrupt established order. Aristocracy, monarchism (or absolutism), and religious institutions are historically seen as key pillars of right-wing ideology, representing stability and legitimacy rooted in divine or inherited authority.
Right-wingers in France desired to perpetuate the ancien régime, the political and social system that existed in France before the French Revolution of 1789. The term, which means “old regime,” encapsulates the aristocratic and hierarchical structure of society, dominated by monarchy, feudal privileges, and rigid class distinctions. The ancien régime featured centralized monarchical power, which reached its height under Louis XIV’s absolutism, epitomized by the belief in the “divine right of kings.” It was supported by traditional institutions like the church and feudal laws, which legitimized a stratified social order.
This system was deeply rooted in medieval traditions characterized by three main estates: the First, Second, and Third Estates. The First Estate was comprised of the clergy, who held significant spiritual and temporal power and were often exempt from taxation. The Second Estate was comprised of the nobility, who controlled vast swaths of lands, enjoyed privileges such as tax exemptions, and held influential positions in government and the military. The Third Estate was comprised of the commoners, which included everyone from peasants, proletariat, and the emerging bourgeoisie (the middle class). This group bore the burden of taxation and was excluded from political power, despite making up the overwhelming majority of the population.
The Surrender of Lord Cornwallis, by John Trumbull
The French Revolution marked the end of the ancien régime, overthrowing the monarchy, abolishing feudal and hereditary privileges, and entrenched social hierarchies, striving instead for equality and democratic-republican principles. The French Revolution, as well as the American Revolution marked the beginning of modernity. Those who led these revolutions were left-wingers, liberals and other radicals, who sought to make the world over again.
The ideals that emerged from the revolutions of the late eighteenth century, particularly liberalism, sought to replace the hierarchical and divinely sanctioned order of the ancien régime with a system rooted in individual rights, limited government, rationalism, and the rule of law. This new order emphasized negative liberty—the freedom from coercion, whether by the state or other authorities—and laid the groundwork for democratic-republican governance and free-market economics. These principles became the cornerstone of modernity, challenging the reactionary forces of monarchy, feudalism, and centralized religious power.
However, the contemporary landscape reveals a shift that paradoxically undermines these modern values under the guise of progressivism. The rise of corporate statism, administrative rule, and technocratic governance signals a departure from the liberal ideals of autonomy and decentralized authority. These structures, often animated by the ideology of woke progressivism, embrace a collectivist ethos that prioritizes identity categories, inorganic equity mandates, and an ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus. This postmodern condition, rather than advancing the liberatory aims of modernity, marks a regression to centralized control, albeit under a new guise.
This shift can be seen as reactionary and regressive because it rejects the Enlightenment principles of individualism and universalism that defined the liberal revolutions. Instead, it reintroduces a kind of neo-feudal hierarchy, where social status is increasingly determined by one’s alignment with dominant ideological frameworks rather than merit or personal freedom. The corporate state, with its fusion of government and corporate interests, mirrors the patronage systems of the ancien régime, where power is concentrated in the hands of elites insulated from democratic accountability.
This dynamic has not only transformed the institutions traditionally associated with progressivism but also reshaped the political alignment of many liberals. The embrace of free speech, the defense of market principles, and skepticism of centralized power—once hallmarks of liberal thought—are now more commonly found among modern conservatives. Of course, these remain the hallmarks of liberal thought.
Thus the migration of liberals to the Republican Party reflects a diminishment of the right-wing ideologies that animated the party during its Religious Right phase. The Republican Party’s embrace of Christian conservatism and evangelical Christianity emerged prominently in the late 1970s and early 1980s, in part an electoral strategy to become competitive after decades of progressive Democratic domination. More broadly, the Religious Right was a cultural movement that aligned conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians with the Republican Party, driven by shared concerns over social issues and a desire to promote traditional moral values in public policy, such as religious traditionalism and rigid hierarchy. With the emergence of populist-nationalism, a modern conservatism rooted in democratic-republican politics and classical liberal principles has emerged.
The irony, then, is that what is branded as progressive or left-wing today often resembles the reactionary forces of the past. By prioritizing control through technocracy, bureaucracy, and ideological conformity, these movements betray the emancipatory promise of modernity. They replace the dynamism of liberal thought with a stifling orthodoxy that privileges centralized power and social stratification under new labels. Far from being progressive, this emerging postmodern order undermines the very freedoms and values that the revolutionary liberals fought to establish, revealing it as a deeply regressive force.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating. As a lifelong liberal, I have always understood liberalism to be more than a fleeting political label—it is a coherent system of ideas grounded in individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and the pursuit of justice through reason and universal principles. Many people I know, who also once identified as liberals, stuck with the Democratic Party as it abandoned these foundational ideas for a postmodern worldview rooted in collectivism, identity politics, and technocratic control. My argument has always been that people do not get to take the labels with them when they abandon the principles those labels represent. Liberalism is not whatever the Democratic Party or its progressive wing claims it to be at any given moment. It is an ethical and philosophical tradition, and if one’s politics and commitments no longer align with its core tenets, then one has left liberalism behind.
Those of us who remain committed to liberal principles find ourselves in a peculiar position, labeled as “right-wing” because we have not shifted our values to follow the Democratic Party’s postmodern turn. This mischaracterization reveals more about the party’s transformation than about our politics. We did not move; the party moved. In doing so, it has blurred the boundaries of liberalism for the masses, co-opting the term for an agenda that is fundamentally at odds with its classical meaning—and causing the modern conservative to condemn liberalism in name, conflating the label with progressivism, while embracing its principles. Steadfastness to liberal ideals underscores the continuity of our commitment to the principles of modernity. Far from being “right-wing,” our politics affirm the very liberal tradition that founded the American Republic, but has since been abandoned in favor of ideas that are, ironically, reactionary and regressive.
“Thanksgiving is about the living. It’s not about corpses—except for the dearly departed we remember together. Thanksgiving is about joining with family and friends and observing the value of those associations and relations that live in our lives. Those who want everybody to dwell in a narrative of collective guilt have way too much influence in today’s world. We need to be more forceful in our insistence that they sit the fuck down.”
The essay expresses a theme running through my criticism of critical race theory and identitarian politics and woke progressivism generally. The phrase of “stolen land” begs questions. Stolen from who? Was it their’s to begin with? Who’d they steal it from? Whatever answers one finds to these questions, the problem remains: Somebody owns the land now and it belongs to them. It is almost certain that they didn’t steal it. They bought it or inherited it.
Thanksgiving at Plymouth, Jennie Augusta Brownscombe, 1925; National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C.
“I hope I never have a day in my life when I won’t or can’t be thankful for living in the greatest republic that ever existed—the United States of America. Although I am not responsible for the actions of those now dead and gone, I can be thankful for my ancestors who founded and built and defended this great nation. I worry about the future, though, not only because of the threats abroad, but the rot inside. The enemies of America are in charge of the machinery of the republic. I’m not religious, but I know many of you are and will pray for America. I’m thankful for that, too. We need more than prayers, though. We need action.”
And action we got. I had noted in that essay the populist-nationalism gaining momentum across the West. In Argentina, libertarian Javier Milei had just emerged as the nation’s new president. Corporate media framed it as a gamble by voters on an outsider with unorthodox views to confront a dire economic crisis marked by triple-digit inflation, looming recession, and escalating poverty. Capitalizing on widespread frustration with the political establishment, Milei secured a decisive victory, earning roughly 56 percent of the vote. Geert Wilders, of the Netherlands, ran a campaign centered on controlling immigration, an issue he pledged to prioritize. Wilders’ victory signaled a challenge to mainstream political parties across Europe, as voter concerns over immigration, rising living costs, and climate policies threaten to unseat them. Sweden’s right-wing coalition government provided a clear example, exploring legislation to impose stricter requirements on migrants. Proposed measures include making residency conditional on adhering to an “honorable lifestyle” and respecting Sweden’s “fundamental values,” with deportation as a consequence for those who fail to comply.
Javier Milei
Over the past year, Milei’s presidency has been marked by bold economic reforms as he seeks to stabilize Argentina’s crisis-ridden finances, including deep cuts to government spending and efforts to dollarize the economy. In the Netherlands, Wilders’ government has enacted strict immigration controls, sparking debates across Europe about the balance between national sovereignty and human rights (as if there is a human right to colonize the Netherlands). Meanwhile, Sweden’s tightened migration laws have influenced similar moves in neighboring countries, as populist rhetoric on national identity and economic security continues to reshape European politics. These developments underscore a growing backlash against globalist policies and a demand for leaders who champion the interests of ordinary citizens over the agendas of political and corporate elites.
Donald Trump
In the United States, Donald Trump’s 2024 victory cemented the momentum of populist-nationalism on a global scale. Running on a platform of “America First” policies, Trump’s campaign reignited his base with promises to disentangle the US from foreign entanglements, revive domestic manufacturing, and bolster national integrity. His decisive win reflected widespread disillusionment with progressive policies and renewed energy among voters eager to reclaim what they view as a diminished national identity. As president-elect, Trump has doubled down on his advocacy of tariffs and sweeping immigration restrictions, including mass deportation of criminal aliens. His victory, coupled with parallel trends abroad, signals an enduring populist realignment, as citizens around the world demand leaders who challenge globalist orthodoxy and prioritize sovereignty, economic stability, and cultural preservation.
“We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months. The reflection is awful, and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavilings of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.” —Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
These two screen captures were curated by Colin Wright, an independent evolutionary biologist. These articles illustrate why I argue that academic publishing is dead. It’s why Wright left academic and established Reality’s Last Stand on Substack, a reality-based platform for the publishing of science and critique. It’s the same reason I established Freedom and Reason on WordPress. I wanted to establish a public platform for reality-based sociology. These platforms allow us to sidestep the gatekeepers who keep out reality-based knowledge while letting in the madness you see below.
Here’s the note. At this point, opinions that correspond to reality by those who advance the ideas of queer theory, and postmodernist nonsense generally, are correct only accidentally. Flat-earthers hold many reality-based positions. However, the flat-earthers did not arrive at their other opinions through the faculties of an objective mind. If they possessed such a mind, then they would not be flat-earthers. Therefore their judgment on all things are safely disregarded.
If readers remember that I am atheist (or are learning that right now), then they may be inclined to ask me whether I disregard the judgment of Christians, since their faith in God is not rational according to the strict rules of science. After all, regular readers will point out, I do classify queer theory as a neo or quasi religion. Indeed, I do, but there is a difference between queer theory and Christianity. Whereas Christianity is rooted in nonfalsifiable propositions—one cannot disprove the existence of God or angels—the central premise of queer theory, namely that gender is arbitrary, is falsifiable. Unlike the soul, gender is an observable thing. Either you have or the possess the potential to have big or small gametes. Either you have XX or XY chromosomes.
Gender is natural historical fact. In our species, it is binary and immutable. To believe that men can be or become women abandons reality in a way that believing in the soul doesn’t; it rests not only on faith belief but on the active disregarding of scientific truth—on verifiable belief. The existence of souls cannot be falsified by science. The existence of gender identity can and is falsified by science.
Here’s the hitch: As one can see from Wright’s curated screen captures, the flat-earthers not only populate the academic-industrial complex and the technocratic apparatus, they produce the “knowledge ” that finds its way into the textbooks and that informs law and policy. To be sure, the major expression of this, DEI, is waning, but the flat-earthers are finding news ways to subvert common sense. And we should not be too secure that DEI will go away entirely. I have written about the problem before, but this brief expose will suffice without sending you down that rabbit hole.
This brings us to the mission: Team Reality won the 2024 election big league. But that’s only the beginning. Our task and purpose is to uproot from our institutions the ideological weeds that are corrupting popular sense-making, the integrity of our republic, and the sanity of our children. We do this in the long haul by making the victory of 2024 a generational moment. We do what the progressives did when Roosevelt won the Presidency in 1932: a completely makeover on the Executive Branch. The Democrats put democracy on the ballot. Now Republicans need to make good on November’s popular reaffirmation of democracy.
Here’s the way we need to think about things going forward. Yes, it will involve distinguishing between Americans and unAmericans—between reality-based thought, law, and policy, on the one hand, and the flat-earthers on the other. The Republic is not a blank canvas. The manifestation of Paine’s beginning again is a monument that must be defending against the defacers. That moment has an inscription: the American Creed. The Creed is a set of fundamental ideals and principles believed to define the American national identity and culture. These ideals emphasize democratic-republicanism, equality, individualism, liberty, rationalism, secularism, and the rule of law. The Creed is rooted in the Enlightenment principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions that affirm those principles.
Here are key tenets of the American Creed: Equality of opportunity. This is principle that all individuals should have the chance to succeed based on their effort and talent, rather than their birth or social status. Any policy that takes into account race, ethnicity, or religion must be banished. The only equity-based laws and policies allow concern sex-based rights, the safeguarding of children, and consideration for the disable. Liberty. Liberty is the commitment to individual freedoms, including freedom of conscience, the freedom speech and publishing, religious freedom, the freedom of association and assembly, and the right to pursue one’s own happiness in a manner that does not tread on the happiness of others. Democracy. Democracy is essentially faith in governance by the people and for the people, ensuring representation and accountability. In the United States, democracy is republicanism, which involves federalism (relative autonomy for the states), and the separation of powers. Rule of law. This is the principle that all individuals, regardless of their status, are subject to the same laws and moreover that justice shall be impartial.
Equality of opportunity disallows equality of outcome. Liberty disallows authoritarianism. Democracy disallows technocratic government. The rule of law disallows the arbitrary prosecution of the defenders of reality-based knowledge and policy. Preserving the Creed for future generations means defending reality-based knowledge and practice from the anti-Enlightenment project that seeks to subvert the foundation of human freedom. Control over knowledge production is therefore central to reclaiming and securing the rational Republic. Our Republic was founded by men of the Enlightenment. The anti-Enlightenment project is antithetical to reason and science. It is follows from logic that the anti-Enlightenment crowd—the flat-earthers pushing queer theory, critical race theory, and all the rest of it—is unAmerican. It is not reactionary to tag the enemies of reason and science as such. It is observing the reality of the situation.
This is the moment it was over for social democracy in America. It wasn’t the right that wrecked it. It was what is popularly known as the “far left,” i.e., woke progressivism, that wrecked it. This is the crowd that believes men can be or become women. This is the crowd that believes the living are guilty of the misdeeds of the dead. This is flat-eartherism as politics. There is no future in flat-eartherism except its drive to destroy genuinely populist movements. It’s as if transnational corporations stood up these faux leftwing “movements” to undermine working people. Oh wait—that’s exactly what happened. I have documented this on the pages of Freedom and Reason.
Bernie supporters should still be livid over this. I voted for him in the Primaries. I would have voted for him for President in 2016. The corporate state and its street-level thugs stopped that. However, every individual who believes in a nation that establishes the preconditions for self-actualization should be livid over what the identitarians have done and aim to continue doing to this country. These people are toxic. Their ideas are reactionary and regressive. There is nothing genuinely progressive about any of this. But it’s more than reactionary and regressive. It’s mental illness. The sane are leaving the so-called left in droves because of the cluster B personalities you see in this video. Nothing they have to say is useful for the pursuit of truth or for the good of the people because what they are saying is madness. They’re crazy and we have to get them away from power.
Ask yourself, do you see a lot of American-made cars in Europe? Not really. Why? Tariffs. Do you see a lot of European trucks in the United States. Not really? Again, tariffs. The European Union (EU) imposes tariffs on passenger vehicles imported from the United States to protect European industries. Does the United States put tariffs on EU passenger vehicles? Yes, but these tariffs are much lower than those imposed by the European Union. The EU tariff on passenger vehicles from the US is on average four times greater than the tariffs the United States imposes on EU passenger vehicles. That’s a lot of US cars not sold in Europe because the EU has made them cost prohibitive for a lot of European workers. There is a high tariff on light trucks (including pickup trucks and vans) imported into the US. The effect of these tariffs has been to protect those industries in America—and in protecting those industries, protecting manufacturing jobs for Americans.
What would be an effective way of compelling the EU to lower tariffs on US passenger vehicles? I think you can figure that out. The more fundamental question is whether you want your government to protect domestic automotive and other manufacturing and good paying jobs for Americans. Should Americans have good paying jobs? The corporate state doesn’t think so. Here’s why:
The progressive political class, which comprises the heart of the Democratic Party, serves those transnational corporate interests that seek lower wages in the United States because they benefit economically while spreading the myth than lower wages will correct the long-term fall in profits. To be sure, absolute and relative lower wages generate greater surplus value, but this occurs at the expense of aggregate purchasing power and hence undermines the system capacity to realize surplus value as profit in the market. This is the cause of periodic business recessions and overall lower standards of living, so it is no small matter.
Historically, tariffs had been a cornerstone of US economic policy, particularly for Republicans who saw them as a means to protect domestic industries. However, by the time Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1933, the transnationalists—the same crowd that encouraged mass immigration—had convinced the masses that the Great Depression proved the harmful effects of high tariffs, particularly the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which had exacerbated global economic decline by reducing international trade. (You will note that the tariff of 1930 occurred after the Stock Market crash of 1929 that triggered the depression.)
Roosevelt’s approach to tariffs marked a significant departure from the protectionist policies of his predecessors. Under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) of 1934, the administration gained the authority to negotiate bilateral trade agreements without requiring full congressional approval for each deal (not in itself a bad tool). The act shifted US trade policy from unilateral tariff-setting to a more multilateral, reciprocal framework. The RTAA allowed Roosevelt to reduce tariffs in exchange for similar concessions from other countries, fostering a climate of free trade hoping to revive global commerce during the depression.
Roosevelt’s tariff policies aligned with his broader New Deal goals of economic recovery and international cooperation (i.e., transnationalization). By reducing trade barriers, his administration aimed to open foreign markets to American goods, alleviate domestic overproduction, and strengthen ties with key trading partners. All this laid the groundwork for the post-World War II global economic system, eventually culminating in the establishment of institutions like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
In Volume III of Capital, Karl Marx suggested that technological innovation can lead to a falling rate of profit by increasing the organic composition of capital (the ratio of constant capital to labor). However, the same effect can also be obtained by offshoring production and the importation of cheap foreign labor.
Everything the corporate class does—automation and mechanization, efficiency regimes, offshoring, mass immigration—undermines the capacity of the system to maintain a stable or growing rate of profit because it undermines effective organic demand by generating and exacerbating the redundancy of human labor. To be sure, the consumer can always spend beyond his means, but that amasses personal debt that enriches financial institutions, leading to greater concentration of wealth and providing more money capital for investments that advance the process of labor redundancy and wage suppression. Citizens who don’t have jobs, if a society is compassionate, drive up public debt as government becomes the provider for those who should (and could) be working. In this way, the costs of globalization are externalized, expecting the government to complete the cycle of capitalist production.
By reducing tariffs and encouraging international trade, Roosevelt aimed to alleviate overproduction in US industries by opening foreign markets to American goods. This may have temporarily bolstered profits in export-oriented industries that benefited from expanded markets. However, increased competition from imports compressed profit margins in industries facing foreign manufacturing. The reduction in tariffs and the resulting global economic integration led to intensified competition, which put downward pressure on prices and, by extension, profit rates. It also put downward pressure on wages. As international trade grew, US firms faced new competitive pressures that spurred capitalists to invest in labor-saving technologies.
A key factor contributing to the falling rate of profit is overproduction, where the market cannot absorb all goods at profitable prices. While freer trade may provide temporary relief by opening foreign markets, it at the same time integrates US capital more deeply into global cycles of production and crisis. The reduction in trade barriers exacerbated competitive pressures globally, contributing to an environment where profit rates continued to stagnate or decline.
Moreover, Roosevelt’s policies, including those reducing tariffs, were part of a broader New Deal agenda that included labor protections, wage increases, and social welfare programs. While these reforms improved domestic demand and stabilized the economy, they also increased labor costs for capitalists. This inorganic redistribution of surplus value from capital to labor also contributed to a compression in the rate of profit, especially in industries reliant on domestic market.
Tariffs did not cause the Great Depression. The perception that they did legitimized the transnationalist strategy of integrating the US work force into the global capitalist economy to the detriment of the American worker. We were tricked. We have pursued globalist economic strategies for long enough to know that it hurts American workers. Transnational corporations don’t care about American workers—and neither do the political elites that serve their interests. We need an economic nationalism focused on putting American workers first. We do that by raising tariffs on imports and forcing other economies to open their markets to our products.
It should have been obvious that a car and its parts manufactured in other countries creates few if any high-paying manufacturing jobs in America. Only cars and parts manufactured in the United States will accomplish that in any significant way. Tariffs will force other economies to allow our passenger vehicles to be competitive in other economies, and this will create more manufacturing jobs in America. So when Democrats tell you tariffs are bad, ask them who they are bad for. Obviously tariffs are good for European workers (who are still voting for the cultural elitism Americans rejected at the ballot box on November 5). If tariffs are good for European workers, why wouldn’t they be good for Americans workers, too? The answer to this question is obvious. And that’s precisely why the globalists don’t want tariffs.
The Daily Beast spins the practice of cerebral hygiene by blaming “MAGA trolls” for the exodus of progressives from X to Bluesky. Bluesky is a social media platform designed to be an alternative to centralized platforms like Twitter, initially aiming to create a more open internet. It was initiated by Jack Dorsey, co-founder and former CEO of Twitter, to explore new models for social media that prioritize openness and user agency. The project gained traction in response to criticisms of centralized platforms regarding censorship, algorithmic control, and data privacy. However, what attracts progressives to Bluesky is the opposite of openness; they like its restrictive character and its focus on policing “rightwing” speech.
(As an aside, Threads is a text-based social media platform created by Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It’s integrated with Instagram and serves as a competitor to X. Threads allows users to share text updates, images, and videos, and it promotes public conversations using an interface familiar to Instagram users. This essay isn’t about Threads, but I thought if you didn’t know what it was, I would tell you. The Daily Beast needed to make Bluesky appear as if it is soaring; Threads is an easy target.)
Cerebral hygiene is a concept associated with the French sociologist Auguste Comte. It refers to the practice of maintaining intellectual purity by deliberately avoiding the influence of other thinkers’ ideas when developing one’s own theories or analyses. I hijacked the term years ago to describe the ideologue who deliberately avoids watching or reading the opinions of those with whom he thinks he will disagree, fearful that he might learn something and then change his mind on account of it. The problem isn’t the one thing he might learn, but the possibility that this one thing may cause his entire worldview to unravel.
This is a problem in today’s political scene: ideologues avoid engaging with opposing viewpoints out of fear not only of contamination, but of destabilization. Cerebral hygiene is a defensive posture: insulating one’s worldview against challenges that could force a re-evaluation of deeply held beliefs. It’s not about preserving intellectual autonomy (which is a silly idea anyway) but maintaining the coherence of an identity tied to those beliefs. The fear isn’t necessarily learning something new; it’s the domino effect that a single contradiction might trigger, potentially unraveling a carefully constructed ideological framework.
My reframing means to leverage psychological and sociological issues, such as cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. By avoiding dissenting perspectives, individuals protect themselves from the discomfort of confronting evidence that challenges their worldview, which would in turn imperil their identity. Of course, this insulation comes at the cost of genuine understanding, intellectual growth, and meaningful dialogue, all of which are necessary for functional democratic systems, means with which populations might build consensus over the important issues facing the nation. What begins as a strategy for intellectual “purity” can devolve into a form of intellectual stagnation, driven more by fear than by a commitment to truth.
I must clarify something; I do not wish the reader to think that I am accusing liberals of such a practice. The Daily Beast is not really talking about liberals; those leaving X are progressives. Liberalism and progressivism are opposites. (Online progressive rags like The Daily Beast like to confuse their readers and retard political IQs by making opposites synonyms and synonyms opposites.) Liberals believe in free speech and open information systems and the production of knowledge that aligns with reality. Progressives believe in none of those things. There’s too much truth on X, so progressives search for platforms that support their narrow worldview and desire for illusion. They found one in Bluesky.
One of the reasons Republicans won overwhelmingly on November 5 was the proletariat and the entrepreneur waking up to the realization that progressivism is an authoritarian corporatist tendency that stifles independent thought and smothers individual autonomy. Rather than run down rightwing rabbit holes, they listened to what progressives were saying and developed a compelling counterargument to their various and delusional opinions. They listened and heard the so-called left speaking in the language of collectivism and identitarianism and said “fuck that.” X users fleeing to Bluesky are only going to make harder for progressives to recapture lost ground. If they don’t confront the enemy, they will lose even more ground. After all, cerebral hygiene was why they lost so much ground in the first place—that and their ideas are shit.
Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate, has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The Establishment has raised concerns over her foreign policy positions, which have included criticism of US involvement in Ukraine, and her alleged alignment with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. From the standpoint of the corporate state, Tulsi’s strident opposition to Islamic terrorism notwithstanding, these views and actions make her unsuitable for the post to which she has been appointed.
It is no exaggeration to say that Gabbard is viewed by the Establishment as an enemy of the state. On August 4, 2024, whistleblowers with the Federal Air Marshal Service revealed that Gabbard and her husband were added to a secret Transportation Security Administration (TSA) program called “Quiet Skies,” effectively placing the couple on a domestic terror watchlist. This is remarkable not only given Gabbard’s political career, but also in light of the fact that she has served as a Lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve since 2021, having previously served in Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020, seeing deployment overseas as both an Army military police platoon leader and a Civil Affairs officer.
Tulsi Gabbard speaks during a Trump campaign rally, October 22, 2024 in Greensboro, North Carolina.
The action against Gabbard and Establishment demands for FBI background checks on all of Trump’s appointees echoes past attempts by corporate state elites to discredit, harass, and suppress those whose ideas elites find threatening to the neoconservative and neoliberal status quo.
This is not the first time our nation has been here. Remember the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations (AGLOSO), a tool of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) created during the early years of the Cold War? The list was established in 1942 under Executive Order 9835, signed by President Harry Truman in 1947, as part of the federal government’s broader efforts to root out “communist influence” and ensure the loyalty of federal employees. The list included organizations deemed subversive due to their ties to organizations considered dangerous to US security. The list was made public in 1948. At that time, it included 78 organizations. Over time, the list expanded to include 154 organizations, with 110 identified as communist or communist-front groups. These groups ranged from explicitly political organizations, like the Communist Party USA, to groups accused of covertly advancing subversive agendas.
AGLOSO was a mark of the period popularly known as “McCarthyism” (so named after Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy who famously kept lists on subversives)—witch-hunts with vague and sweeping criteria leading to overreach and infringement on civil liberties. With limited evidence and plenty of innuendo, the Establishment used AGLOSO and other lists to suppress dissent and punish individuals for their political affiliations and opinions.
The lists contributed to a broader atmosphere of fear and political repression, and while the use of AGLOSO waned in the 1950s and 1960s as the Red Scare subsided and public opposition to such measures grew, and one would have hoped that the lessons of Cold War-era excesses in the name of national security would have been internalized and future excesses avoided, the FBI’s CointelPro programs of the 1960s-70s targeting such leftwing organizations as the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, some of which enjoyed a limited hangout in the high-profile Church Committee hearings of 1975, demonstrated that lessons were not learned. (See The Black Panthers: Black Radicalism and the New Left.)
Nor were lessons learned from the CointelPro scandal. The current actions of the DOJ, the Attorney General, and the FBI echo the AGLOSO and CointelPro, only now they are aimed at allegedly right-leaning groups and individuals, a new iteration of political repression where dissenting voices, particularly those from conservative, libertarian, or populist movements, are subject to heightened scrutiny under the pretext of national security or public safety.
Conservatives and liberal allies point to federal agencies targeting individuals and organizations associated with political movements that oppose the current administration’s policies or challenge mainstream narratives. This scrutiny involves labeling groups as threats due to alleged ties to domestic terrorism and the spread of misinformation (see Church 2.0). Examples cited include investigations into organizations promoting election integrity, opposition to COVID-19 policies, or criticisms of progressive social agendas. (See The “Control of Misinformation” and the Deterioration of the Integral State; The Hi-Tech Custodial/Surveillance State.)
The FBI—the same agency political elites are demanding Trump subject his political appointees to via background checks—has pursued certain right-wing entities, such as parents protesting school board policies, as potential domestic terrorism threats under the USA PATRIOT Act. Similarly, the DOJ’s focus on groups involved in the January 6 Capitol riot lumped thousands of peaceful political activists with a handful of violent offenders. (See MDM is the New WMD: DHS Issues a New NTAS Bulletin; Establishing the One-Party State.)
Like AGLOSO, these measures create a climate of suspicion that undermines civil liberties and democratic freedoms. Government agencies have weaponized their authority to stigmatize political opposition and silence dissent, effectively chilling the exercise of free speech and assembly. The double standard in enforcement, such as the lack of equivalent attention to left-leaning groups, for example those involved in violent protests during the summer of 2020, demonstrates the ideological bias at work. (The same double standard is at work in the UK; see EngSoc—Jail Time for Gendering in the UK?Indigenous English Rise Against Modern-Day Colonialism.) This selective approach mirrors the undemocratic nature of AGLOSO, targeting political affiliations and ideologies rather than specific illegal activities.
The modern iteration of AGLOSO represents a broader struggle over the boundaries of governmental power and the right to dissent. The targeting of right-leaning groups is part of a larger campaign to marginalize movements that challenge the influence of elites, corporate power, or centralized authority, particularly within a framework of managed democracy (see Sheldon Wolin). Such actions have eroded trust in federal institutions, deepened partisan divides, and undermined the democratic principles of fairness and equality before the law. This is why deconstructing the Administrative States and abolishing the Deep State are imperatives in the struggle to reclaim the American Republic. (See Tasks for the Rebel Alliance.)
I don’t see progressives here or on Twitter or in the Cathedral condemning the Biden administration for authorizing Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia or for Ukraine using that authorization to actually fire long-range missiles into Russia, thus bringing the world to the brink of WWIII (see Will WWIII Begin in Eurasia?).
Live fire testing at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., on Dec. 14, 2021, of early versions of the Army Tactical Missile System the Biden Administration just authorized Ukraine to use against Russia.
Where does principle exist in this crowd? To be sure, any side that will erase women as a sex class can be presumed to lack principle altogether, but I have in the past heard a lot of antiwar noise from the folx. When it was Bush and Cheney doing the warmongering, they were in the streets raising a ruckus. Of course, that was before the Democratic Party made perfectly clear that they had become the party of Bush and Cheney.
Anthony Blinken, US Secretary of State, and Jake Sullivan, US National Security Advisor, are behind this and both should stand before a tribunal to answer for their crimes against humanity. Biden should stand before the same tribunal, except that he’s a potato who doesn’t know what room he’s in at any given moment. For the same reason the government didn’t bring him to trial for his theft of classified documents, they would likely leave him be for authorizing a state the CIA and State Department installed in Ukraine in 2014 to fire US-made missiles into Russia.
Joe Biden flanked by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
However, Barack Obama is still of sound mind and body. Since Obama was President when the CIA and State overthrew the democratically-elected government of Ukraine in the Maidan Revolution (see History and Sides-Taking in the Russo-Ukrainian War), he should stand before the tribunal and made to answer for his wicked deeds.
freedom and reason 