Per Bylund on economic literacy

Economic literacy is mind-opening because it allows us to truly understand how the world works. 

~ Per L. Bylund

 

Lee Kuan Yew on communism

In 1978, we had a discourse. I said to him, Communism will only work if you believe that all men will sacrifice themselves for their fellow men and not [first] for themselves and their families. I work on the basis that all men and women first work for themselves and their families, and only then will they share a portion of it with the less fortunate. That's the basis on which I work. 

~ Lee Kuan Yew to Deng Xiaoping when he traveled to Singapore in November, 1978

Kevin Duffy on the U.S. vs. China

From an economic standpoint, the U.S. and China are moving in opposite directions. 

The reality is that a) there are a lot of smart, hard working, resilient, entrepreneurial people in China, b) markets have gotten much freer since Deng's reforms in 1978, c) significant capital accumulation has taken place and d) there has been tremendous investment in human capital. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. has been doing all the wrong things (it's a long list) and moving towards markets that are less free. The consequences of these trends are becoming increasingly obvious, yet instead of coming to grips with reality and working towards getting our own house in order, we Americans prefer to deny reality and blame the successful for our own failures.

Not diagnosing and fixing the problem is bad enough, but this is far worse: we risk destroying two positive countervailing forces that have helped alleviate our self-inflicted wounds. The first is turning our backs on China's productivity miracle, which has been a boon to the American consumer. The second is alienating Chinese STEM students, who bring their talents to Silicon Valley and increasingly run our most successful tech companies.

~ Kevin Duffy, Twitter/X post, October 20, 2025

 

Caitlin Johnstone on the Gaza genocide

The Gaza holocaust will be a litmus test for high-profile figures for decades.  Everyone’s comments or lack thereof on Israel’s genocidal atrocities will be looked up and amplified whenever their name rises to public attention.  It will be the first step in determining whether anyone deserves to be listened to, taken seriously, or voted for.  Their comments on Gaza in the mid-2020s will be the first gate through which they must pass to be considered worthy of attention by normal people. 

Someone asked me, “Why do you care so much about Palestine?” 

I told them ultimately it’s not even especially about Palestine.  I care about humanity.  I don’t want my kids and grandkids living in the kind of world that would watch civilians get ripped to shreds in full view of the entire planet with the support of my government and its allies.  I think that’s pretty reasonable.

~ Caitlin Johnstone, "They Seriously Expected Parades and Trophies For Pausing a Genocide," LewRockwell.com, October 14, 2025

 

Murray Rothbard on the Constitution

Overall, it should be evident that the Constitution was a counterrevolutionary reaction to the libertarianism and decentralization embodied in the American Revolution.  The Antifederalists, supporting states’ rights and critical of a strong national government, were decisively beaten by the Federalists, who wanted such a polity under the guise of democracy in order to enhance their own interests and institute a British-style mercantilism over the country.  Most historians have taken the side of the Federalists because they support a strong national government that has the power to tax and regulate, call forth armies and invade other countries, and cripple the power of the states.  The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the Antifederalists’ fears.  With the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the new government was now a fact and the Antifederalists would never again agitate for another constitutional convention to weaken American national power and return to a more decentralized and restrained polity.  From now on American liberals, relying on the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment, would go forth and do battle for Liberty and against Power within the framework of the American Constitution as states’-righters and Constitutionalists.  Their battle would be a long and gallant one, but ultimately doomed to fail, for by accepting the Constitution, the liberals would only play with dice loaded implacably against them.  The Constitution, with its inherently broad powers and elastic clauses, would increasingly support an ever larger and more powerful central government. In the long run, the liberals, though they could and did run a gallant race, were doomed to lose—and lose indeed they did.

~ Murray Rothbard

(As quoted by Lew Rockwell, "Rothbard on the Constitution," Mises Wire, October 9, 2025.)

 

 

Dan Ferris and Corey McLaughlin: Is Duffy the only bull on China?

Ferris: He [Kevin Duffy], if I'm not mistaken, is the only person who says China is an opportunity...  Everybody else says it's uninvestable, one guy like Kevin says buy.

 McLaughlin: It's funny because a month or two ago when we interviewed Brett Eversole... and we were talking about cheap, hated and in an uptrend, after that episode I got a message from Kevin on Twitter... "Hey, what about China?"

~ Dan Ferris and Corey McLaughlin, "China Isn't the Enemy - It's an Investing Opportunity," Stansberry Investor Hour, October 6, 2025

 

Kevin Duffy on history

Looking at history, it's like this movie that's unfolding.  If we understand history, we get a sense for how this movie, not how it ends, but where it's going.  We don't necessarily know all of the plot twists along the way; those may be a little more difficult to figure out.

~ Kevin Duffy, "China Isn't the Enemy - It's an Investing Opportunity," Stansberry Investor Hour, October 6, 2025

 

Doug Casey on hate speech

Hate speech is unpleasant. I don't like it any more than anybody else does.  But it's important that there be no regulation of what people say.  Not just because the First Amendment guarantees free speech, but because if you do regulate speech, who decides what's hateful?  It's not an objective standard.  It's an opinion.  And in a highly politicized environment like today's, that's asking for trouble. 

I'm all for people being allowed to say things that are hateful, simply because how else can you know who they are and what they believe?  Trying to preclude hate speech is about as stupid as trying to enforce loving speech.

I like to know what's going on in people's minds, as opposed to trying to guess.  Forewarned is forearmed.  Suppressing so-called hate speech is like putting a lid on a pressure cooker.  At some point, it will blow.  The best solution to so-called hate speech is open discussion.

~ Doug Casey, "Doug Casey on Whether Charlie Kirk's Death Could Be America's Franz Ferdinand Moment," International Man, September 24, 2025

 

Thomas Sowell on barbarism and civilization

Guilt has so furtively stolen into many hearts and minds that people feel apologetic about being civilized, educated and productive when others are barbaric, uneducated and parasitic.  When civilization apologizes to barbarism, something has gone very wrong at a fundamental level.

~ Thomas Sowell

  

Ron Paul: Who killed Charlie Kirk?

I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week.  The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory, with an ever-changing plotline that makes little sense. 

Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more non-interventionist approach.  Tucker Carlson recently recounted that Kirk had even gone personally to the White House to urge President Trump to refuse to take military action against Iran.  He was rebuffed by President Trump, Carlson informed us.

 Likewise, conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, has stated on her program that Kirk was undergoing a “spiritual crisis” and was turning away from his past embrace of militarism and in favor of America-first non-interventionism, particularly regarding the current unrest in the Middle East.

Was Charlie Kirk murdered – directly or indirectly – by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views in such an influential leader?  We don’t know.

~ Ron Paul, "Who Killed Charlie Kirk?," Power & Market, September 16, 2025

 

 

Ron Unz on the Charlie Kirk assassination

Maybe it was a a professional assassination, maybe it was just a random nut, but it seemed much closer to being a professional assassination than any of the recent assassination attempts I can think of in American society over the last 20 to 30 years.

~ Ron Unz, "Is Charlie Kirk's Assassination the Most Shocking Since JFK?," Coffee and a Mike, 31:05 mark, September 13, 2025

 

Ron Unz on the message Charlie Kirk's killing sends to high-profile influential people in America

Probably 99.9% of wealthy, powerful, prominent people in America - Hollywood stars, top elected officials, billionaires and multibillionaires - don't have anything like the security that Charlie Kirk had, and he was still killed.  So if he was killed by an organization rather than a random nut, that's a very very powerful message to send to all of the wealthy, powerful, influential people in American society.  If you're a content creator and spend your time home doing videos, you're relatively safe, but if you're somebody who goes out on a daily basis, who speaks before audiences, who is an elected official, holds public meetings, who's a corporate executive who goes to your office every day, you're much much vulnerable, I think, than someone like Charlie Kirk is.  And if he can be killed, you can be killed.  And that's a very dangerous message to send to people.

~ Ron Unz, "Is Charlie Kirk's Assassination the Most Shocking Since JFK?," Coffee and a Mike, 38:00 mark, September 13, 2025

 

Matthew McConaughey on purpose

Your purpose in life is to create something that outlasts you.

~ Matthew McConaughey

 

Tho Bishop on the assassination of Charlie Kirk

Modern America has been one of constant shock: decades of war, economic turmoil, covid lockdowns, contested elections, rising political escalation, and resulting political violence. Despite this contemporary backdrop, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a moment that stands apart in the way that singular death—with a face, a family, a story, a particular context—is always easier to process than a broader event, no matter how horrible. 

Kirk was a 31-year-old husband, a young father, and perhaps America’s leading “political influencer” of an age defined by the craft. His traditional calling card, the one that brought him to the Grand Valley State University campus, was characterized by debate and dialogue that was dismissed by enemies on the left as cheap stunts and criticized by some on the right for being corny. Regardless of one’s opinions on Kirk’s individual views, it was a throwback to the romantic notions of persuasion and conversation still holding value when so many voices advocated for political domination and conquest.

It was precisely Kirk’s desire to engage with those he disagreed with that put him in the path of a killer bullet. This event will forever shape how generations of Americans view our politicized society.

~ Tho Bishop, "The Dehumanization of Charlie Kirk Came from the Establishment," Mises Wire, September 11, 2025