Darrell Castle talks about the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Communism and how it is still affecting our world today. Transcript / Notes 100 YEARS OF COMMUNISM AND THE DESTRUCTION OF MORAL ORDER Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, November 3, 2017, and on today’s report I will be talking about the 100th anniversary of the rise of communism and what it means for us today.  Most people place the date of the Russian Revolution as November 6, 1917 but some place it two weeks earlier, depending on which calendar is used.  Whichever calendar is used for the calculation, this week is the 100th anniversary for our purposes. 100 years ago this week, Vladimir Lenin and his followers rose in revolt against the Russian Czars and hundreds of years of government by a traditional inherited ruling class, who ruled a feudalistic society that was basically unchanged for centuries.  The Revolution was part of the destruction of the social order across Europe, fueled by World War l.  The old ruling classes were swept away along with the lives of an entire generation of young men. Communism ended Czarist rule in Russia and replaced it with a new set of rulers who soon took on much of the characteristics of the old, except far worse.  The last 100 years have seen the deaths of over 100 million people as a direct result of the Russian Revolution, or about 1 million people per year.  Pogroms of genocide, the purging of various classes of people, execution of military officers and anyone else in leadership, intentional mass starvation numerous times, instigation of the great terrors against the Russian people, numerous times, as well as the destruction of the Russian economy, caused by the 40 year long cold war against the West; all these things and more can be held to the account of the communists. As an economic system, communism has been a complete and utter failure wherever it has been tried but despite that it is still in vogue today, especially on college campuses.  It’s usually referred to as “socialism ‘ today, instead of Communism, but it’s the same idea.  You can find it doing its steady work in Venezuela and across the third world, but the disastrous results seemingly have no effect on American college professors.  Socialism captured American education many years ago and the results of that capture are what we are seeing on college campuses today. Adherents to this philosophy, who currently refer to themselves as progressives, argue that the Communism of Stalinist Russia is, and was, different from their brand of Socialism, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck.  The socialists sometimes have trouble explaining the history of their movement but they are certain that if they just tinker with it a little, all the horrible deeds of Stalin will disappear and the mistakes will not be made this time. Over and over I argue that what we are seeing today is the intentional destruction of Western Civilization, with all its benefits to mankind.  In order to destroy Western Civilization, it is necessary to destroy its foundation, which is Christianity, and the Christian moral and ethical code.  Those who seek our destruction, along with their encouragers in the media, politics, the corporate world, entertainment, and education, have done an excellent job of what they set out to do from the days of Lenin.  The destruction of faith in God has been the ultimate goal from the beginning. Let me quote from the Communist Manifesto: “There are eternal truths, such as freedom, justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” So there you have it; religion is abolished, along with its 2000 years of history and the upward ascent of the individual.

Darrell Castle talks about the NFL protests and asks the question “Should we be allowed free inquiry as to whether the protest allegations are true or not?” Transcript / Notes THE NFL PROTESTS—IS FREE INQUIRY POSSIBLE? Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, October 27, 2017,  and as you listen to this Report, I will be in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for the Constitution Party National Committee meeting. Today, however, I will be talking about the NFL protests again, not because I want to save the NFL but because I believe that free inquiry, or the policy of allowing all points of view to be heard on an issue, is vitally important for our society. Playing the national anthem at sporting events is a tradition whose time has probably come.  Playing of the anthem at baseball games was begun during World War l to build patriotism and support for the war.  Like most temporary things it continued after the war, and by World War ll, had become a tradition at virtually all sporting events.  With the United States constantly involved in wars around the world there is always a need to build support here at home.  The NFL protests make stopping the anthem more difficult, though, because it would appear to be capitulation to the intimidation of the players. Having said all that, I will also say that it is sensible to show respect for symbols like the National Anthem because they are part of the national consensus, part of what we are as people.  Disrespecting the anthem upsets the country at its very basic level.  It is crass and revolting, and in the long run will harm race relations in the United States. Let’s take a look now at what started the protests that have spread around the country.  The quarterback for the San Francisco Forty-Niners, who at the time was Colin Kaepernik, remained on one knee during the Anthem and then stated: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” He went on to say several other things but that is the statement that started it all it all. The NFL is now 70% black so white players, whether they want to or not, must show solidarity with their teammates or face ostracism.  Virtually all players, it seems, are now in support of the protests and it has evolved much further than just the on field kneeling.  There is a video which shows Michael Bennett, a player for the Seattle Seahawks, burning an American flag in the locker room while all the other players and coaches, including head coach Pete Carroll, stand around cheering him on.  It is a very insulting and alarming video but it does serve to illustrate the deep divide that exists in America. I present a question today; How can this divide ever be closed without free inquiry? The owners considered a proposal to require the players to stand as a condition of their employment agreement but decided instead to just encourage them to stand.  The players were not so inclined, however.  Recently Jesse Jackson made the statement that playing in the NFL is “like slavery.”  That remark is totally absurd and serves only to cheapen what human slavery actually was and is. I still think the problem can be solved through the free market by just not going to games.  The solution is easy, just stop going.   A group of Veterans are trying to organize the weekend of November 12th as a boycott day in honor of those serving and those who have served.  The 11th is Veterans Day and the 10th is the Marine Corps birthday so perhaps fans will honor that and stay away in droves. Colin Kaepernik’s original statement perfectly reflects the prevailing narrative of the ruling elite in Western Societies today.  Not just in America, but all across the Western World, his view is, in varying degrees, the prevailing one.  It is passed down to us rubes through politicians, the media, entertainment, including professional sports, but especially Hollywood, and of course, education.

Darrell Castle talks about a new anti-terrorism law in France and how the French belief in its necessity is tied to the destruction of ISIS. Transcipt / Notes THE FRENCH PATRIOT ACT Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, October 20, 2017, and on today’s Report we journey back to the old Continent of Europe to look at the nation of France, and examine a new law recently passed, supposedly to help the French deal with terrorism.  This new law actually had its origin in the attacks of November 2015, which killed more than 130 people in what is commonly known as the Charley Hebdo attacks. Since that day, France has been under an official state of emergency, which is a heightened security measures regime that was described as “temporary” when it was declared but is still in effect.  This state of emergency gives local police and local administrative authorities heightened powers to arrest and detain suspects without judicial oversight.  We’ll get back to this in a minute but for now just know that the “heightened security measures” empowers local police to deprive people of basic liberty without recourse to the courts, so no impartial observer to render judgment. France doesn’t have a written constitution that enshrines liberty in a written document as we do in America.  French rights are written in laws passed by a Parliament and a Senate, and they are also included in tradition handed down from at least the French Revolution in 1789.  When the people feel threatened and powerless they will demand protection from their government, which is always right there to provide it.  Sometimes the government even provides the reason for the peoples’ insecurity in the first place. Since the Charley Hebdo attacks, terrorism has not abated due to the state of emergency but instead, has gotten worse.  A total of 239 lives have been lost to terrorism including and after those attacks.  Just a couple of weeks ago there was an attack in Marseille where a Muslim shouting Allahu Akbar stabbed two women to death.  That French city is 40% Muslim and now the most dangerous city in Europe.  The attacks increase in intensity and in number, and once again the French people demand protection.  France’s new Prime Minister, Emmanuel Macron, proposed a new law, which would make the state of emergency permanent and would include some new passages, but he also left out a few things. Some things to keep in mind are that this new law is the product of a French left government, not a right wing one.  Big Brother it seems is a leftist, at least in France.  This act is being enacted as a response to terrorism just as was the American Patriot Act that was adopted after 9/11.  Now let’s look at some of the things included in the new act as well as some things omitted. Perimeters of protection are established around public events, which negate ordinary civil liberties.  These perimeters apply to any public event including rallies, protests, sporting events, concerts, etc., and they extend to a month in advance of the event.  The perimeter extends 20 miles around transportation centers such as ports and airports, as well as the public venue itself.  I.D. control, which means arrest without charge, is allowed for up to 12 hours, and without access to the courts.  This means that a person may be held by local police for 12 hours before being charged, for any reason deemed necessary.  The chief of police in each local area has the power unto himself without judicial monitoring. People may be placed in house arrest and confined in an area of exclusion from which they can’t leave.  The exclusion area is like a small area in a town or province.  The arrestee must wear an ankle monitor so this is in effect, sentence to a Ghetto.  All “suspected” persons must give police their passwords and other computer security measures.  Police have what’s called “visits and referrals”, which allow them to show up at your house and take things like co...

Darrell Castle talks about war in the nation of Yemen and its danger to the Saudi Monarchy. Transcipt / Notes THE RAPE OF YEMEN Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, October 13, 2017.  That’s right, today is Friday the 13th, a very appropriate day to discuss the Nation of Yemen, and the war that has been ongoing there for several years.  The war is bad luck indeed for the Yemeni people.  I’m certain they would much prefer to go back to their lives of misery and suffering, amid the rubble that has been made of their country. Yemen has one thing going for it, though; one thing worth fighting for, one thing the great powers, such as the United States, believe to be worth the blood and treasure of their people, and that one thing is geography.  Yemen happens to be located on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, at the corner of the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, and it occupies one of the great oil choke-points of the world, as well as the southern border of Saudi Arabia.  Geography, then, is Yemen’s best asset but as we will see, it’s also its worst. The land that is today called Yemen has been at war for centuries, but the ongoing struggle that I address today, only decades.  It seems that two rival groups, one the current government, and another group of Houthi rebels, struggle for control of the government and nation.  The Houthis are followers of Abdel-Malek Al  Houthi and they are Shia Muslim, as are virtually all Yemenis. This struggle on its border for control of a Shia country, in other words a civil war, right on its southern border, was too much for Saudi Arabia to resist, so on March 25, 2015, it entered the conflict.  The Saudis brought along other Sunni nations including Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, as well as the European Union, and the United States.  ISIS has now also intervened as a separate entity for reasons we will discuss later. Most of the thousands of civilian casualties suffered during this conflict have been inflicted by airpower.  The Saudis have bombed Sanaa, Yemen’s capitol city, relentlessly since the start of the war.  The United States has flown about 100 sorties into Yemen this year alone.  In addition, the United States has troops on the ground in Yemen, mostly Navy Seals and other special forces.  A Navy Seal was killed earlier this year on a mission inside Yemen. There are many nations involved, and many nations contributing to the misery, but every bomb that falls, every artillery round that lands, and every bullet that’s fired has Made-in-the-USA stamped on it. So today we look at what’s really going on here, and what’s the reason for destroying a country of 28 million people, whose lives would be very difficult in the best of times but virtually impossible in this war. According to the United Nations (U.N.), more than 12,000 civilians have been killed and wounded in this conflict.  Since almost half the population of Yemen is under the age of 18, children account for a third of all civilian deaths.  What infrastructure Yemen once had has been destroyed, as well as the supplies of food and fuel, resulting in mass famine.  The U.N. tells us that 17 million are in famine conditions, about 6.8 million in severe famine, and about 462,000 children under age 5 are severely malnourished.  Two million homes have been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of Yemenis have fled the country.  All efforts at peace seem to have failed, and so have efforts to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. These are the results of a war in a desert country that has not much going for it except geography and the homes of 28 million people. In our efforts to find a cause for all of that, and thus avert its happening over and over, we should understand the extreme anti-U.S. sentiment that has been created in Yemen by this conflict.  Yemen’s people know who is dropping the bombs and whose bombs are being dropped,

Darrell Castle talks about revolution in Spain as the region of Catalonia seeks independence. Transciption / Notes CATALONIA REALLY WANTS TO BE FREE Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, October 6, 2017, and on today’s Report I will be talking about the nation of Spain and the struggle of one of its regions, or provinces, to become an independent nation.   We start with a little background. Prior to the start of World War Two, the Spanish Region of Catalonia sought to establish a Republic in Spain, which was  was allied in its struggle with the Soviet Union.  The opposing force was Spanish Dictator Francisco Franco who was allied with Nazi Germany.  Adolph Hitler had begun rearming Germany from its defeat in World War l, and the Spanish Civil War gave him a chance to test his new weapons, especially the Luftwaffe or German Air Force.  The new airplanes used in Spain caused Great Britain to take notice and start its own re-armament.  The Spanish Civil War became a cause for celebrity attention around the world.  Ernest Hemingway went there and wrote “For Whom The Bell Tolls” about it. Franco continued as Spanish head of state until his death in 1975.  After his death a Constitutional Monarchy was established with 17 autonomous regions, one of which was Catalonia.  The autonomy of these regions was spelled out in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, but the Constitution did not allow for complete independence from Spain.  Since that time the region of Catalonia has been in a struggle with the Spanish Government in Madrid.  The two sides can never agree on how much autonomy each region has or even what is meant by the term autonomy.  The Catalan people have voted in non binding referendums many times and each vote is overwhelmingly for independence. Each time the Spanish Government goes to the Constitutional Court for a ruling that the referendum is illegal and unconstitutional, and each time they get it.  Spain will not voluntarily let go of Catalonia, the nation’s most valuable and richest region.  Catalonia is not the only Spanish Region to consider independence.  The Basque region is watching these events very closely. Catalonia is located on the northeast corner of Spain.  It borders France and the Mediterranean Coast, and includes the city of Barcelona.  It is Spain’s number one tourist region, from which comes its highest tax revenue.  The tax system is Catalonia’s reason for wanting independence, and has been since the Constitution of 1978.  The Catalans are upset because more than a majority of their taxes are collected from them but used in other regions.  Catalonia is being used as a tax farm by the Spanish Government to fund its welfare and vote-buying schemes in other regions. In a nutshell, the real problem with Catalonia, and Spain in general, is one of demographics.  Spain has the lowest fertility rate in Europe and its population is rapidly aging.  While Spain struggles to deal with an unproductive and aging population the European Union requires the immigration of a few million immigrants supposedly to replace Spanish low wage workers, but who in reality, fill the welfare rolls.  Scotland could not afford to vote for independence from Great Britain because of all the subsidies it receives but in Spain the relationship is reversed and Catalonia subsidizes the Spanish Government. The Catalan people have come to the conclusion that they would be better of without the rest of Spain so they are pushing independence as far as it will go.  Other regions such as the Basque region watch and wait for their own opportunity.  Spain is in a very difficult spot because if Catalan is allowed to be free, other regions will follow suit and the Spanish Government will have no way to pay the debt service on the billions it has borrowed from the European Central Bank and the German Banks. In its desperation to keep Catalonia peaceably, Spain has offered to pay billions to the region.

Darrell Castle explains how the free market can control the NFL players’ refusal to stand for the national anthem. Transcript / Notes   Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, September 29, 2017, and on today’s Report I will be talking about the NFL and the National Anthem protests.  This has been a very busy week in news with many things happening that are worthy of note such as the re-election of Angela Merkel  in  Germany, with the German Conservative Party gaining enough support at about 13% to have seats in the German Parliament. In Alabama, Roy Moore finally won the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate seat previously vacated by Jeff Sessions. Moore has been in the struggle many years but if he wins the special election to be held December 12, and it looks certain that he will,  a populist candidate opposed to both the mainstream of his own Party as well as the Democrat agenda will sit in the U.S. Senate. In a small church outside of Nashville, Tennessee, a black racist who came to the United States from the Sudan at five years of age shot seven people, killing one so far.  The shooter had apparently been radicalized by anti-white rhetoric he had read or seen on social media and decided to do something about it, so he went to a little country church and shot a bunch of older white people. My discussion today, however, is on a far more mundane subject than any of those.  Today I have to talk about football because the National Football League and its players have made it virtually impossible not to talk about it.  I doubt if there is anyone left in America who doesn’t know that NFL players have started refusing to stand for the National Anthem.  Most kneel but a few teams have stayed in the locker rooms while the Anthem is playing.  Last Sunday, at the annual game in London, the teams stood for God Save the Queen but not for the Star Spangled Banner. The fact that I am even talking about this points to how sports, especially football, have become an obsession to Americans.  Every game that is played is now nationally televised, whether it’s the traditional Sunday games, Sunday night, Monday night, and now Thursday night.  Families plan their weeks and evenings around NFL Football.  It is, to put it mildly, very important to people, and more of an obsession than just entertainment. I’ve been a sports fan my entire life as my family is painfully aware, and if I watch television at all, it is sports.  Even when there is no time to catch a full game, I will catch bits and pieces of games and follow the scores on my phone.  There are tens of millions of people out there in America who are far more obsessed than I am.  People physically attend each home game their team plays, and most have tailgating traditions with friends and family.  It would not be unusual today for a family of four to spend 500 dollars at an NFL game with tickets, concessions, and team souvenirs. These people have had their world’s disturbed by the protests.  They watch football to escape from the cultural divide, not to have it forced into their living rooms.  Many argue that the players have a right to do what they are doing and many others say no, they are employees and therefore their behavior is controlled, or should be, by their employers. Here’s a very simple solution to all the protests that are now spreading to college and even high school games.  Stop going, stop watching, stop buying merchandise, stop patronizing the League’s sponsors.  Whether you think they have a right to not stand for the anthem or not there is one thing of which I am certain—you have an absolute right to refuse to pay to watch them do it.  That’s where the free market comes in and controls sports, and anywhere else it’s allowed to. If two teams showed up to play in an empty 70,000 seat, billion dollar arena, I’m certain it would get their attention. Ideally, when teams kneel for the anthem, 70,

Darrell Castle talks about President Trump’s broken promises and the tragedy of what could have been. Transcript / Notes BETRAYAL Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, September 22, 2017, and on today’s Report, I will be talking about promises made and promises broken, and what might have been from President Donald Trump.   President Trump campaigned on a promise that he would end DACA on his first day in office, but 8 months later he makes a feeble attempt but then reneges. Last week I said that he sent Attorney General Jeff Sessions out to announce that he was going to issue an order withdrawing President Obama’s executive order establishing DACA, but then the President invited Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to the Whitehouse for dinner.  Ms. Pelosi issued a statement summarizing the discussions and stated that there would be legislation re-establishing DACA by law, which the President had agreed to sign.  There would be serious discussion about border security “less the wall.” The Whitehouse Press Secretary said that, yes, border security was discussed, but no discussion about not building a wall, there was no agreement about that.  That would make Nancy Pelosi either an idiot or a public liar.  That’s possible but highly unlikely.  No, folks, it sure sounds like the promise which first got him noticed in the polls,  i.e., “I’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it”, has been abandoned. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan told a group of Republicans that “only one person wants a wall”.  Well, Mr. Ryan, I beg to differ because 63 million Americans voted for that wall, but hey, who cares about them.  Everyone in Washington not only wants no wall, they want amnesty.  Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, along with all Democrats,  want it.  Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and all the liberal Republicans, want it.  The tech company billionaires in Silicon Valley want it, and it looks like they will have it because the only ones who don’t want it are the ones with no power and no influence.  Tens of millions of tax paying Americans don’t want it, but they do not count. So no repeal of DACA, and no wall, along with the destruction of the Republican Governors’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DACA , those are what President Trump has delivered instead of fulfilling his promises to the voters.  This President likes the deal.  He is the consummate deal maker and he likes the deal more than the Constitution and the rule of law.  He worked out a deal with the Democrats and they got everything they wanted, but what did we get?  I just don’t see the quid pro quo. It is a very sad reminder of what could have been.  This is what happens when you elect someone with no ideological motivation.  He had the power to withdraw President Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Order on his first day as he said he would, but he chose not to.  What a message that would have sent around the world, but instead, he chose to send a message of betrayal. I remember President Reagan’s amnesty bill in 1986, which was supposed to be the last one, and was supposed to include border security.  What amnesty did instead was to deliver California to the Democrats forever.  That’s not enough for the Democrats though, they want the entire country forever. This all brings two questions to mind; what is the value of citizenship, and what is the value of coming to America legally?  American citizenship has always been the golden prize, the brass ring that millions around the world desired, but was obtainable by only a few.  Five cities in Maryland have now passed laws making it legal for non citizens to vote. In Philadelphia, a city Councilman recently stated that hundreds of non citizens vote there.  So once again, what’s the point of legality?  Perhaps America is now a “failed state”.  I looked “failed state” up in the dictionary and it said “a state that deteriorates to where conditions and responsibilities of a sovere...

Darrell Castle explains DACA and discusses Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ defense of the rule of law and how it applies to the ending of DACA. Transcript / Notes Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, September 15, 2017, and on today’s report I will be discussing DACA, which stands for Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals.  In June of 2012, President Obama, after Congress repeatedly denied his request for Congressional implementation, decided to take legislative action on his own authority, by executive order. President Trump campaigned on a promise of ending DACA “on his first day in office.”  It took more than eight months but he finally got around to withdrawing President Obama’s executive order.  Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions was sent out before the cameras to make the announcement that DACA would be ending.  That, in and of itself, is probably significant because President Trump is usually not shy at all about the limelight, but it is through Attorney General Sessions’ remarks that we will approach this discussion because his remarks contained as fine a description of why the rule of law is important that you will ever hear or read. He said that to have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here.  Therein lies the rub, because so many Democrats and Republicans consider their own interests and the interests of their Party’s leadership, but not the national interest. DACA was a program that provided a legal status for recipients for a renewable two year term, as well as work authorization, and participation in the social security program.  These benefits went to about 800,000 illegal aliens who were supposed to be exclusively children but apparently were also a lot of adults.  Notice I used the term “illegal aliens” to describe these people because that is the description in America’s immigration laws, and it is the description used in his announcement by Jeff Sessions.   It is more accurate than the politically correct “Dreamers” that is in vogue today. Jeff Sessions described for us what President Obama did in implementing DACA. “In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions.  Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” He then went on to give a description of why the rule of law is so important especially with regard to immigration. “We inherited from our founders—and have advanced—an unsurpassed legal heritage, which is the foundation of our freedom, safety, and prosperity.  As the Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and the Constitutional order is upheld. No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law.  Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed. Societies where the rule of law is subject to political whims and personal biases tend to become societies afflicted by corruption, poverty, and human suffering. To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here.  That is an open border policy and the American people have rightly rejected it.  Therefore, the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means all cannot be accepted.” Well, Amen Attorney General Sessions, I could not have said it better myself. DACA is sold to us as a system of compassion.  It would not be compassionate to take away from these “children” who were brought here by their parents or others but not by their own rational choice, the legal rights once granted to them. I would point out the rights once granted under D...

Darrell Castle discusses how corporations and government have joined forces to destroy the right to speak freely in America. Transcript / Notes CORPORATISM AND THE DESTRUCTION OF FREE SPEECH Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, September 8, 2017, and on today’s report I will be discussing the topic of whether the right to speak freely still exists in America, or whether it has been extinguished by the combined efforts of Corporate America and Government America. When Benito Mussolini rose to power in Italy, he adopted the Roman Fasces as his symbol, the Fasces is an axe surrounded by reeds or sticks, denoting centralized power.  Since he chose that symbol, his system of government became known as “fascist” but he said it would be more accurate to call it “corporatism”, because of its blending government and the corporate world into one.  In this report, I argue that we are at least approaching that position today with regard to free speech rights. In 2011, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology conducted a study to determine who owns what and who controls what in the corporate world.  They studied 37 million different corporations and investors, finally narrowing it down to 43,000 trans-national corporations.  The 43,000 corporations were all “inbred”, or said another way, they all owned each other.  The group was then narrowed down to 167 corporations that actually control all the others, and of that 167, just 20 banks control them. That study was in 2011, and I’m sure the number of the most powerful banks is much smaller now.  For example, Goldman Sachs was 19th on the 2011 list and it would be hard to imagine a more powerful financial organization now.  These financial houses become revolving doors for the government with their CEO’s rotating in and out of the office of Treasury Secretary, etc.  Government blends with, and virtually becomes one with, the corporate world.  It is widely assumed that in 2007, when the global financial system was on the verge of collapse thanks to risky investments by the great financial institutions, Henry Paulson, of Goldman Sachs, briefed Congress so they could engage in insider trading in order to profit individually from the disaster.  Insider trading was perfectly legal for them but a crime for us. This report is not meant to be a discussion of banks and their power over all of us and how they have enslaved the whole earth through credit and debt owed to them, but instead it is a discussion of free speech, and how the corporate world is uniting to control it for their own purposes.  We are at, or at least nearing a point, where only one view is acceptable to be presented.  I don’t mean that only one view is right because that is normally the case, I mean that only one view can even be discussed.  Should any view other than the prevailing narrative widely considered acceptable be presented, there will be severe repercussions. I don’t mean that someone from the government will show up at your door with a gun and arrest you.  The first amendment is still in effect to that extent, although what you say or write could qualify as hate speech, in which case the government might make an official visit.  What I mean by severe repercussions is that the corporate world will act in place of the government and will release its hounds to destroy your life.  James Damore, an engineer at Google is an example that most everyone is familiar with.  Mr. Damore is a highly intelligent man working for one of the world’s most powerful and sought after companies.  He was educated at MIT and Harvard where the smartest kids in the country go. Google recruited him to do coding and other computer engineering. He was privy to much discussion at Google about the company’s lack of diversity in its work force.  It was apparent that virtually all of the company executives and lower ranking employees accepted the discrimination narrative as explanation.

Darrell Castle talks about the President’s speech announcing a new strategy in Afghanistan.  It looks a lot like the old strategy. Transcript / Notes A NEW STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday September 1, 2017, and on today’s report I will be discussing President Trump’s speech, given on August 21, in which he discussed “our path forward in Afghanistan”.  He stated that his gut instinct told him to leave Afghanistan, and he likes to follow his instincts, but sitting behind the desk in the oval office gives one a perspective that he cannot see otherwise. The United States, with Donald Trump as President, is not the first empire to attempt to conquer, pacify, or force to the bargaining table the Afghan people, in whatever political form they existed at that time.  The armies of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the Mongols, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union have all been broken or blunted on the rugged terrain, history, and religious fervor that make up Afghanistan.  Now Donald Trump has been convinced that he is different from the others and his investment of thousands of more troops will make the difference.  Perhaps he missed history at Fordham and the Wharton School.  That’s really sad because the people he is committing to battle are our future, our sons and daughters are being thrown into this “new strategy.” So, it looks as if the new strategy is the same as the old strategy.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, at least in this regard.  Your gut instinct was correct, Mr. President, and you should follow it.  You criticized President Obama for his no-win wars, and now you announce a strategy to do essentially the same, except with a few meaningless changes.  During the campaign you stated that Ron Paul was right—that we should never have gone into Afghanistan.  What happened to that opinion, Mr. President?  I imagine that it disappeared when all those Generals appeared in your administration. These are all Generals who have never won a war.  They all have sterling combat records but were dispatched to fight endless no win wars, and perhaps that clouds their perspective.  We seek victory in Afghanistan, the President said, but we can’t seem to define what victory even is.  How will we know it when we see it?  Who was the last General to have actually won a war and, therefore, would know victory when he saw it.  The World War ll generals led by General Eisenhower, I suppose, and that was 72 years ago.  Richard Nixon was quoted as having said that Ike would be able to control the Generals because he had been a General and would not be intimidated by them, but most presidents would be. More than 70 years of fighting and dying, but never being able to sail into the enemy’s harbor to accept surrender, has to affect the psyche of career officers service-wide.  The President spent several minutes of his speech complimenting the military and saying how grateful we are etc., but apparently he intends to continue using them in the same way. He said that he had arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.  First, “our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made.”  That is an impossible goal unless he wants to commit American troops to Afghanistan permanently.  Perhaps that is what he means, i.e., to have Americans in protected enclaves in firebases around Afghanistan forever, but I don’t think so.  No, I think he is talking about the same strategy that failed in Vietnam, and that is to make it so costly in lives for the Taliban that they are anxious to enter into negotiations for some type of power-sharing arrangement.  Number one, that sounds a lot like the political arrangement that existed before we got there, and number two it won’t work. The enemy forces in Afghanistan will never negotiate in earnest.  Why should they negotiate when they can wait u...