Aggregatore di feed

Click here:

John Leake

The post Trump Should Tell Europe’s Leaders to Shut Up and Cease Fantasizing About War With Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Trump–Putin Phone Call Sends Shockwaves Through Kyiv appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Trump Declares WAR On Massie and Rand! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Eugyppius

The post The firewall is making AfD the strongest party in Germany… appeared first on LewRockwell.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/lalleanza-tra-washington-e-nuova)

Mentre gli scambi commerciali tra Cina e Stati Uniti continuano a diminuire, Pechino è ansiosa di stabilizzare le relazioni commerciali con Washington, e lo ha fatto, almeno per un po'. Ma quanto durerà un accordo commerciale se il regime cinese continua a violarlo?

La dura realtà è che il Partito Comunista Cinese (PCC) è consapevole della sua posizione precaria. Da un lato la Cina ha un disperato bisogno di stabilizzare le sue relazioni commerciali con gli Stati Uniti; dall'altro non può rispettare gli accordi perché è costretta a barare sulle condizioni commerciali, poiché  le debolezze strutturali prevalgono e spingono l'economia al ribasso. Di conseguenza il livello di fiducia tra Washington e Pechino è basso.

La mancanza di fiducia non è ovviamente l'unico fattore che sfavorisce la Cina. L'antipatia dell'amministrazione Trump nei confronti del regime cinese come rivale strategico è ben nota e difficilmente cambierà. Inoltre gli investimenti esteri diretti stanno diminuendo e le aziende straniere stanno abbandonando la Cina il più rapidamente possibile.

Molte di loro si stanno trasferendo in India. L'elenco delle aziende che scelgono l'India rispetto alla Cina è significativo e in costante crescita, anche prima che il presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump, ottenesse un secondo mandato. Nel 2024 decine di grandi aziende, tra cui Dell, HP, Intel, Samsung, LG Electronics, Nike, Hasbro, Blizzard Entertainment, Stanley, Black & Decker e molte altre, hanno già trasferito i loro stabilimenti in India o prevedono di farlo nel prossimo futuro.

Anche questa tendenza non sembra destinata a cambiare. Secondo un sondaggio del 2024 della Camera di Commercio Americana in Cina, il 45% delle aziende statunitensi in Cina ha avviato piani per diversificare i propri fornitori al di fuori della Cina, mentre il 38% sta prendendo in considerazione questa possibilità. La proverbiale scritta sul muro è sulla Grande Muraglia cinese: il divario commerciale si sta ampliando, non riducendosi. I suoi giorni da leader mondiale nel settore manifatturiero e il peso strategico che ne deriva stanno per finire.

La grande opportunità dell'India con gli Stati Uniti

Nel frattempo, con grande preoccupazione di Pechino, l'India sta strategicamente cambiando rotta per colmare questo divario, espandendo le sue relazioni commerciali con gli Stati Uniti. Questi ultimi sono altrettanto decisi a deviare gli scambi commerciali dalla Cina verso l'India.

Le intenzioni dell'India sono allineate a quelle degli Stati Uniti. Ad aprile di quest'anno il vicepresidente statunitense, J. D. Vance, ha visitato l'India per stabilire un accordo commerciale bilaterale tra i due Paesi. L'obiettivo è aumentare l'attuale volume di scambi commerciali da $190 miliardi a $500 miliardi entro il 2030.

La crescente relazione tra Stati Uniti e India va oltre il commercio. Prima della visita di Vance, la direttrice dell'intelligence nazionale statunitense, Tulsi Gabbard, era in India per una conferenza geopolitica. Ancora più significativo è il fatto che il primo ministro indiano, Narendra Modi, sia stato tra i primi leader mondiali a incontrare Trump dopo il suo ritorno alla Casa Bianca. All'epoca Modi menzionò una “mega partnership” con gli Stati Uniti e avviò negoziati per affrontare i dazi imposti da Trump sui prodotti indiani.

In particolare, Modi aveva già ridotto i dazi su alcuni beni statunitensi prima di incontrare Trump. Questo potrebbe spiegare perché i funzionari indiani abbiano descritto i negoziati commerciali come “molto attivi” e “intensi”, avvalorando la percezione di un accordo commerciale in fase di elaborazione tra Stati Uniti e India.

Gli effetti strategici a catena

La Cina potrebbe non essere a conoscenza di questi sviluppi e può già vedere diversi effetti a catena in atto. Come notato, gli Stati Uniti sono interessati al “friend-shoring” o alla ristrutturazione delle catene di approvvigionamento globali dalla Cina all'India. Un ulteriore impatto potrebbe essere la riduzione della capacità di Pechino di supportare la Russia nella sua guerra contro l'Ucraina.

Sebbene tra Washington e Pechino sembri esserci una sorta di riorganizzazione degli scambi commerciali, la tendenza delle aziende ad abbandonare in massa la Cina rimane innegabile. Apple ha annunciato che trasferirà fino al 25% della sua produzione di iPhone dalla Cina all'India entro il 2025, e anche una parte significativa della sua produzione di telefoni negli Stati Uniti verrà trasferita fuori dalla Cina.

Ma si stanno verificando anche altri effetti.

Una questione strettamente correlata è il predominio della Cina sul mercato delle terre rare. Come gli Stati Uniti, l'India dipende dal monopolio cinese sulle terre rare. Uno dei cambiamenti politici di Modi è quello di concentrarsi sul potenziale dell'India di aumentare la sua capacità produttiva di terre rare e diventare un fornitore chiave per gli Stati Uniti. Ciò rappresenterebbe un duro colpo per la Cina e una grande vittoria sia per l'India che per gli Stati Uniti.

Un altro aspetto significativo è il crescente coinvolgimento dell'India nella pianificazione della difesa statunitense nella regione. L'India svolgerà un ruolo sempre più importante negli accordi di sicurezza statunitensi nella regione indo-pacifica.

La risposta a doppio taglio di Pechino

In risposta a questi sviluppi, il PCC sta diventando creativo. Ad esempio, in contrasto con le barriere commerciali erette dopo l'incidente di Galwan che ha coinvolto scambi militari, i media statali cinesi hanno lanciato l'idea di ridurre le restrizioni commerciali e incoraggiare l'interazione tra Cina e India. Questo è un risultato diretto della crescente visibilità dell'India nella regione e del dialogo con gli Stati Uniti.

Forse ancora più importante, l'ambasciatore cinese in India si è impegnato a fermare il dumping di prodotti cinesi nei mercati indiani, ad alleviare i deficit commerciali e persino a rimuovere le barriere tariffarie e non tariffarie sulle importazioni indiane. Questo annuncio si accompagna alla ripresa del dialogo diplomatico, al coinvolgimento ad alto livello, ai voli diretti e persino alla possibilità di un migliore accesso alle terre rare per l'India.

Nel tentativo di contrastare la tendenza al friend-shoring, però, la Cina sta limitando le esportazioni di macchinari e i trasferimenti di attrezzature verso l'India, al fine di ridurre al minimo la propria capacità di gestire la domanda manifatturiera in entrata. Pechino sta inoltre avvertendo Nuova Delhi che il suo impegno con Washington – sia nel commercio che in alleanze strategiche come il Quad, nonché la cooperazione nell'evoluzione delle posizioni di difesa a guida statunitense – potrebbero minacciare i suoi rapporti cordiali con la Cina.

Un'altra carta da giocare per il PCC sarebbe quella di aumentare il sostegno al Pakistan, il rivale regionale dell'India dotato di armi nucleari. Si tratta di una minaccia velata, ma improbabile che funzioni perché sia ​​il Pakistan che l'India sono nazioni dotate di armi nucleari. Il sostegno di Pechino non altera sostanzialmente lo status quo.

Una o tutte queste potenziali contromisure di Pechino saranno sufficienti a distogliere Nuova Delhi dalla sua inclinazione verso Washington? Il regime cinese riuscirà a ostacolare l'ascesa dell'India, nonostante il continuo collasso della sua economia?

Improbabile.

La Cina sta affrontando una tempesta su più fronti, principalmente provocata da essa stessa attraverso le politiche del PCC, e questa tempesta non fa che peggiorare. Per usare la metafora conosciuta da tutti, è una tempesta perfetta contro la Cina e a favore dell'India.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

Last week we celebrated Columbus Day. Some states don’t recognize the holiday under this name. Instead, they call it “Indigenous People’s Day” or “Native Americans’ Day”. For example, here is the proclamation by radical left-wing “Governor” Gavin Newsom of California: “Governor Newsom proclaims Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2024

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation declaring October 14, 2024, as “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

PROCLAMATION

For the sixth year in a row, California proclaims today as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. In doing so, we reflect on the vibrant cultural diversity, and tenacity, of the Indigenous peoples who now call California home – including those who originate from and maintain deep relationships with these lands and waters, those who were relocated here from their sacred homelands by federal policies and those who have crossed oceans and borders with hope in the ability to find economic stability, community and safety in these lands of opportunity.

In recent years, we have experienced a global effort to disentangle the harmful legacies of historical violence and extraction and restore the beneficial legacies of Indigenous balance, sustainability and reciprocity. This includes a growing understanding of how the doctrine of discovery was called on historically to justify the expropriation of Indigenous lands and subjugation of Indigenous peoples, a legacy that has also been linked to the worsening of climate change and other environmental harms.

Increasingly, we are turning to Indigenous peoples in the existential imperative to restore balance, weather climate impacts and preserve biodiversity. This year alone, California followed the charge of the Klamath Basin tribes to complete the largest dam removal project in American history; welcomed native beaver, wolf and condor populations home; and enacted historic land access, return and stewardship mechanisms for Indigenous peoples. Later this month, California, along with leaders from across the globe, will meet to discuss the need to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous peoples in the race to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

As we look toward a future in which we continue to support these practices while also bolstering Indigenous language learning and revitalization, uplifting Indigenous sports in mainstream spaces, spotlighting Indigenous arts and infusing governance with Indigenous values, we are excited for the chance to demonstrate this work on the world stage at the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. Los Angeles boasts not only a rich community of the first people of those lands and waters, but also one of the largest populations of Native American people and diverse Indigenous immigrants alike. Further, for the first time in over 100 years, the games will include the Indigenous sport of lacrosse, offering an opportunity to showcase the Haudenosaunee athletes whose ancestors invented the game.

Today, as we are reminded of the forces of violence, displacement and oppression that tried and failed to eradicate Indigenous communities, I call on all Californians to find meaningful opportunities to uplift, validate and engage with Indigenous peoples and cultures on a global scale.

NOW THEREFORE I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, do hereby proclaim October 14, 2024, as “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 14th day of October 2024.

GAVIN NEWSOM

Governor of California

ATTEST:

SHIRLEY N. WEBER, Ph.D.

Secretary of State

Murray Rothbard didn’t agree. Writing in 1992, he said: “What was the Old Right’s position on culture? There was no particular position, because everyone was imbued with, and loved, the old culture. Culture was not an object of debate, either on the Old Right or, for that matter, anywhere else. Of course, they would have been horrified and incredulous at the accredited victimology that has rapidly taken over our culture. Anyone who would have suggested to an Old Rightist of 1950, for example, that in 40 years, the federal courts would be redrawing election districts all over the country so that Hispanics would be elected according to their quota in the population, would have been considered a fit candidate for the loony bin. As well he might. And while I’m on this topic, this is the year 1992, so I am tempted to say, repeat after me: COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA! Even though a fan of diversity, the only revisionism I will permit on this topic is whether Columbus discovered America, or whether it was Amerigo Vespucci. Poor Italian-Americans! They have never been able to make it to accredited victim status. The only thing they ever got was Columbus Day. And now, they’re trying to take it away!”

You might ask “Why does any of this matter? Who cares what name we give to a state holiday?” But it in fact matters a great deal. There is a plot by the left, supported by some but not all “native Americans,” that the land on which we live was stolen from the “indigenous people” and they are the rightful owners of the land we now live on and all we have built on it. They don’t want to kick us off our property, but they demand compensation, which could cost billions. If we don’t accept that we live here on sufferance, what can we do.

Here is where Murray Rothbard comes to our rescue. In his view, “native Americans” (AKA Indians) do have property rights, but only when they can show that their ancestors clear title to individually acquired property. Vague claims of “tribal rights” or “grazing rights” and the like do not suffice to establish title. In Volume 2 of his monumental Conceived in Liberty, he says about Indian property in Pennsylvania, “It must be recognized, however, that the bulk of Indian-claimed land was not settled and transformed by the Indians, and that, therefore, the Scots were at least justified in ignoring vague, abstract claims, whether by government or by Indian tribes, to the lands they knew that they were settling. Many of the Ulster Scots were squatters on frontier land. Lacking money to pay the prices asked by the feudal proprietary, they reasoned that they were entitled to own virgin land that they themselves had cleared and tilled. They needed no acquaintance with John Locke to sense that such land was their rightful property.”

For Rothbard, possession by an actual individual is essential. As he says in The Ethics of Liberty, “It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, ‘produces’ them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner.

“Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones’s title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its “first” (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor.

“But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.” Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter.”

The implications for the Indian question are straightforward.  Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises.  Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue.  Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights.

Let’s do everything we can to defeat the left-wing claim that most of our land belongs to Indian tribes. As a good first step, let’s join Rothbard in celebrating Columbus Day. Let’s reject the Left’s tendentious substitute names.

The post Rothbard on Columbus Day appeared first on LewRockwell.

Individual liberty lies at the heart of the libertarian tradition. In this tradition, self-determination is understood as an emanation of individual liberty, rather than as a right vested in the “nation” or the “state” as a collective unit. In his book Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises explains,

To call this right of self-determination the “right of self-determination of nations” is to misunderstand it. It is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they belong.

It is in this context that the “rugged individualism” of the American frontiersmen, as they fought for independence in both the Revolutionary War and Lincoln’s War, should be understood—as a struggle by each individual for his own liberty and right to self-determination. In his book Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, James Webb depicts the Scots-Irish frontiersman as a self-reliant individualist, quoting Vernon Louis Parrington:

They were desperately poor; the available lands near the coast were already preempted; so armed with axes, their seed potatoes, and the newly invented rifle, they plunged into the backwoods to become our great pioneering race… A vigorous breed, hardy, assertive, individualistic, thrifty, trained in the democracy of the Scottish kirk, they were the material out of which later Jacksonian democracy was to be fashioned, the creators of that western type which in politics and industry became ultimately the American type.

Webb describes the Scots-Irish as “radical individualists” who never exhibited the collective group-identity that dominates today’s socialistic identity politics, where people claim to have rights based on their race or sex. To the Scots-Irish individualists,

In their insistent individualism they are not likely to put an ethnic label on themselves when they debate social issues. Some of them don’t even know their ethnic label, and some who do don’t particularly care. They don’t go for group-identity politics any more than they like to join a union.

Webb explains how this understanding of the individual as independent from the group came to be regarded more broadly as the traditional hallmark of American individualism. He further observes that the Scots-Irish had “a culture of isolation, hard luck, and infinite stubbornness.” He adds that their independent spirit was such that they even “rejected” what they saw as “Virginia’s Tidewater ‘Cavalier’ aristocracy”—an attitude that was in keeping with their “defiance of authority.” Therefore, as political conflict escalated between the New England and Southern states in the years leading up to secession and war, it might seem surprising to modern observers that the these individualists, known for their “culture of isolation,” would rally to defend a Southern “nation” spurred by events in South Carolina and Virginia that were in many ways far removed from their own daily lives. Most of them were not wealthy planters, nor did they own any slaves that would cause them to have a personal stake in the abolitionist debates.

Webb describes his own Confederate great-great-grandfather who “owned no property and the value of his possessions totaled ten dollars, neither of which was unusual in these hills [of western Virginia].” Why, then, did they rally behind the Confederate banner? Webb explains that, far from being surprising, this response reflected the very same spirit of independence and defiance of authority: “In their eyes, an outside force was not only telling them how to live their lives, but also threatening to force solutions on them if they disagreed. They would solve their own problems, if problems there were.” This is the point that people fail to appreciate when they ask why the South seceded for independence—they ask, “Independence to do what?” and “States rights to do what?” The answer is, independence to solve their own problems, and liberty to determine their own destiny.

Webb’s book highlights an important aspect of individualism that merits more attention. The ideal of individual liberty has less to do with atomistic or self-regarding character traits, and more to do with independence from collective control. Individualism in the American tradition represents the conviction that each individual is the author of his own life and is not subject to the will or control of the government. Webb describes the Scots-Irish historical rootedness in “the first wild resolute angry beaten Celt who tromped into the hills rather than bend a knee to Rome two thousand years ago,” who had “a fierce resoluteness that found itself always in a pitch against death.”

He quotes Wilbur Cash, who also commented on “the most intense individualism” of the Confederate soldiers who, when federal troops invaded the South after the secession of South Carolina, enlisted to defend what they increasingly regarded as their Southern nation. Webb describes how these men “rose like a sudden wind out of the little towns and scattered farms of a still unconquered wilderness.” He focuses on the motivation of each individual who enlisted, asking,

How did all this confusion present itself inside the mind of a typical young man called into action to fight for the Confederacy? First, the odds are overwhelming that he did not own slaves at all. Was he then merely a pawn, a simple agent of those who did? These were loyal and uncomplicated people, but their history could never mark them as either stupid or passive.

He concludes:

It might seem odd in these modern times, but the Confederate soldier fought because, on the one hand, in his view he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded, and, on the other, his leaders had convinced him that this was a war of independence in the same sense as the Revolutionary War… The tendency to resist outside aggression was bred deeply into every heart – and still is today.

This attribute of individualism emphasizes freedom from state coercion. As the historian Walter Fleming observes, Southerners “were Democrats of the Jeffersonian school, believing in the largest possible liberty for the individual and in local management of local affairs.” Similar ideals are reflected in libertarian philosophy. For example, Ludwig von Mises depicts individual liberty as the ideal of living without state interference:

The distinctive principle of Western social philosophy is individualism. It aims at the creation of a sphere in which the individual is free to think, to choose, and to act without being restrained by the interference of the social apparatus of coercion and oppression, the State. All the spiritual and material achievements of Western civilization were the result of the operation of this idea of liberty.

In his book In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, Frank S. Meyer criticizes “New Conservatives,” for misunderstanding the ideal of “individualism.” Meyer argues that, far from being atomistic, each individual is a social animal who sees the value of his fellow man:

It is true, of course, that there would be no political or social institutions, nor any meaning to political inquiry, if men lived as single isolated individuals. To insist, as I do, that the individual is the criterion by which institutions and political theories should be judged is not to deny the immediate and obvious meaning of the phrase, “man is a social animal,” that is, that each man has a multifarious set of relationships with other men.

This is often overlooked by those who assume individualism to be a threat to cohesive society. They deem it to be a concept that encourages disregard for one’s fellow man or the self-worship of oneself as a self-reliant person who neither needs nor values nobody else. The individual does not stand apart and remote from society. On the contrary, as Friedrich von Hayek emphasized, society is the basis of interaction between individuals, and it is through the interaction of free men that free societies flourish. Mises understood this notion of individualism to be essential to liberty, explaining that, “The concept of freedom always refers to social relations between men.”

The post Individualism and Self-Determination in the American Tradition appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s plans are criminally transparent: they are quite simply a brazen effort to legitimize regime change with the ultimate goal of appropriating Venezuela’s petroleum resources.

For those who think the ultimate goal of the Trump administration in this South American country is to crush the narcotics trade are in for a rude awakening.

This week it has been reported that the White House has secretly authorized the C.I.A. to carry out subversive activities, which represents the latest step in the Trump administration’s intensifying pressure campaign against Caracas. The U.S. military has been building up its naval presence Caribbean Sea with the stated goal of targeting drug smugglers.

Is anybody really surprised?

In late August 2025, the United States deployed 4,500 sailors and multiple naval vessels, including missile destroyers, a cruiser, an amphibious assault ship, and a nuclear-powered submarine, off the coast of Venezuela. In other words, far more firepower than is needed to crush a drug cartel. Indeed, officials framed the operation as part of an enhanced counter-narcotics mission; however, the buildup should not be viewed as anything less than bloodthirsty “gunboat diplomacy”, part and parcel of a regime change operation to drive President Nicolás Maduro from power.

US President Donald Trump acknowledged this week that he had authorized the clandestine action and said the United States was considering strikes on Venezuelan territory.

“We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” the president told reporters.

In July, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated the Cartel de los Soles – a Venezuelan crime and terrorist organization said to be headed by high-ranking members of the Armed Forces of Venezuela who are involved in international drug trade – as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization, citing Maduro’s leadership role within the cartel. This, Washington arrogantly believes, will give it the authority to take out Maduro, who was democratically elected president by the people of Venezuela in 2013.

Trump’s plans are criminally transparent: they are quite simply a brazen effort to legitimize regime change with the ultimate goal of appropriating Venezuela’s petroleum resources, which comes as a grave violation of the UN Charter.

At a UN Security Council session on October 10, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia accused the US of plotting a coup in Venezuela under the guise of an anti-drug campaign.

“We are witnessing a brazen campaign of political, military, and psychological pressure on the government of an independent state with the sole purpose of changing a regime unfavorable to the US,” Nebenzia stated, noting that the coup plot is being carried out “using the classic tools of color revolutions and hybrid wars” by “artificially fueling an atmosphere of confrontation.”

Amidst the military buildup off the coast of Venezuela, it should come as little surprise that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Educated at Yale, her early career was broadly funded by the National Endowment for Democracy—one of the most important Western tools for co-optation, social engineering, color revolution, and regime change,” wrote the political analyst Raphael Machado on these pages. “Another relevant connection for Maria Corina is the Davos Forum, which promotes her as ‘the future of Venezuela,’ precisely for her ability to combine the most disastrous neoliberalism with the most caricatured wokeness…”

As is obvious by now, the Norwegian prize serves not as a reward to peacemakers, but as a brutal tool for anointing those favored by imperialism and to legitimize war.

In 2002, Machado launched her NGO Súmate – a so-called “election-monitoring group” – to organize violent US-backed destabilization efforts paid for by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an agency created to carry out political operations formerly executed by the CIA.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric out of Washington continues to ramp up. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has declared that Maduro is not the legitimate president of the country, due to his government’s alleged falsification of results in the 2024 election, and the Justice Department doubled the bounty for his capture to $50 million.

A US invasion of Venezuela would come at a high cost, which many Americans would oppose. By comparison, the American invasion of Panama in 1989, to overthrow the government of General Manuel Noriega, was carried out by a force of some 30,000 U.S. troops, which resulted in hundreds of casualties. Venezuela is vastly larger than Panama, and while its military is not modern, it possesses more military forces that were available to Noriega. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates an invasion of Venezuela would require nearly 50,000 troops. The Trump administration, which rode to power on an isolationist platform, should be extremely worried about the causes on which it spends the lives of American soldiers.

The real threat of such an operation, however, would rear its ugly head after the invasion. Bringing down Maduro’s government is one thing; there is no real chance that the Venezuelan armed forces can put up a serious fight against the American military. However, occupying and rebuilding the country is another consideration, as the U.S. learned to its disappointment in the Middle East and North Africa, in still-struggling places like Iraq and Libya.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Washington Is Reaching Its Deadly Endgame in Venezuela appeared first on LewRockwell.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt really got under Democrats’ reptilian skin last week when she correctly noted, “The Democrat party’s main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”   Botoxed and unnaturally preserved devil-worshipers from Nancy Pelosi’s generation haven’t been this worked up since President Lincoln freed their slaves.  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries did his best Greta Thunberg impression by sinisterly glaring at television cameras and slinging “How dare you?” insults in Leavitt’s direction.  There’s nothing that Democrats despise more than a person willing to tell the truth.

It will be interesting to see whether Democrats’ main constituent groups — illegal aliens, violent criminals, Antifa terrorists, rabid communists, and Islamic jihadists — show up for the vaunted “No Kings” protests being staged around the country on October 18.  Previous iterations of this loony leftist “primal scream” have mainly attracted geriatric women reliving their “free love” hippie days and cuckolded manservants carrying their wives’ purses.

It’s strange seeing so many old white people gathered in one place as if they were part of some wandering nursing home whose handlers (the same ones who fill out residents’ mail-in ballots) replaced patients’ daily pill cups with adrenaline shots and spiked the early-dine pudding rations with geezer rage.  An impartial observer could be forgiven for assuming that the gates to these Potemkin protests include an exclusionary post: “To enter, you must have fond memories of President Roosevelt (Theodore or Franklin) and have skin so pasty-white that you are easily confused for a corpse.”  After two decades during which the Democrat party has run on an explicitly racist platform — We hate white people, and we are entitled to steal everything they have — I suppose it makes sense that Democrats still retain so much support from those old enough to remember the Confederacy.

The October 18 “No Kings” extravaganza has been billed as the Democrats’ glitziest event of the year.  Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer — who is reportedly desperate to stave off a primary challenge from the hammer and sickle brigades running his party — has refused to fund the federal government until Democrats’ cosplaying “revolutionaries” can partake in at least one id-fest that permits their assorted criminals to burn down businesses and trash city streets.

However, there’s only so much mayhem the Matlock and Murder, She Wrote contingents can unleash when so many drooling participants must nap between protest chants and visits to the restroom.  Previous “No Kings” performances have had all the pizzazz of a last-minute casting call for zombie extras in The Walking Dead.

If Chuck and Hakeem really want to make a statement, they’ll let the tens of millions of criminal illegal aliens go wild on the streets of America and ask New York City mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani to release his jihadi hordes.  Nothing says, “We love America” and “We should run the government” like a bunch of foreigners and anarchists screaming, “We hate America!” and “We must burn America to the ground!”  Leave it to the Democrats to habitually take sides with America’s enemies.

In anticipation of the Democrat party’s latest day of rage,  Los Angeles County has declared a “state of emergency” over Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the area, so that Democrat politicians can give illegal aliens “free” money.  That’s right, Democrat officials in California and other pro-crime death traps steal money from American citizens in the form of taxes so that they can pay illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration laws.

What do sane, rule-of-law jurisdictions call people who aid and abet criminal activity?  Correct again, they are called criminals!  But don’t tell Los Angeles!  It’s criminal government identifies as a “sanctuary city”!  Just as bearded perverts identifying as “women” are allowed to use the same restrooms as little girls in Democrat-controlled “safe zones” for sexual predators, criminal illegal aliens identifying as “law-abiding, undocumented citizens” are allowed to invade Democrat-controlled “safe zones” for foreign nationals.  It’s so easy to justify outrageous things when you can fundamentally transform reality simply by renaming it!

I’ve just been handed a note from Silicon Valley’s censors and the European Union’s overseas word police.  Apparently, it is “racist” to describe the illegal arrival of tens of millions of foreign nationals as an “invasion.”  Such language implies that these uninvited foreigners are not welcome to break into the United States and sponge off the country’s depleted welfare programs.  Telling foreigners that they must respect a nation’s borders is only valid in Ukraine.  Everywhere else, it’s a textbook example of “hate.”  Nobody wants to be accused of “hate.”  As Charlie Kirk’s murderer amply demonstrated, leftists will kill anyone Democrats slander as “hateful.”

Ironically, the same Democrats who refuse to call the arrival of tens of millions of foreign nationals an “invasion” have no problem smearing federal law enforcement officers with that label.  Illinois governor “Jabba the Pritzker” (hat tip to James Howard Kunstler for that gem) has repeatedly complained that President Trump’s mobilization of National Guard troops to protect federal property and the lives of federal agents constitutes an “invasion.”  Jabba the Pritzker also insists that President Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnated and that ICE agents are acting as his Nazi Gestapo.

This is how far down the demented rabbit hole Democrats have dragged us.  A prominent Democrat politician seeking his party’s 2028 presidential nomination has no problem with rapists, murderers, narco-terrorists, human-smugglers, or sex-traffickers taking advantage of Democrats’ open borders policies to spread death and destruction across the United States.  All those vile creatures are welcome in Illinois, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and wherever else Democrat politicians turn human misery into political power and personal profit.  But if the president of the United States faithfully executes the duties of his office by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution and safeguarding the lives and properties of the citizens of the United States, then Democrats will accuse him of being a “Nazi” and “invading” their lawless states.

The public pouting sessions that Democrats call “No Kings” protests feature plenty of this obnoxious insanity.  ICE agents and other law enforcement officers are vilified as “slave-catchers,” “child-abusers,” and “violent thugs.”  However, by demonizing federal agents who enforce immigration laws, Democrats are actively defending violent transnational gangs whose members abuse women and children and sell them as slaves.  Only depraved Democrats could take sides with modern-day slavers and be so morally obtuse that they brag about supporting cartels.  Only those who have never put their lives on the line for another human being could defame those who do as “fascists.”

How many women have to be murdered before anti-ICE rioters figure out that they are enabling evil on a continental scale?  How many children have to be raped before “No Kings” blowhards realize that the animals they defend profit by inflicting trauma on the most vulnerable?  Democrats have their slogans and their prefabricated signs.  Apparently, they abandoned principles long ago.

Adding to the hypocrisy of the Democrats’ “No Kings” street theater is the fact that leftist billionaires fund these “mostly peaceful” but often fiery riots.  American communists who have never had the guts to depart the United States for one of the many Marxist hellholes around the world carry their preprinted protest signs and scream obscenities at hardworking Americans who just wish to live their lives in peace.  Meanwhile, they never ask themselves why wealthy oligarchs pay for their “revolutions.”  Leftists are the least self-aware people on the planet.

Democrats’ “No Kings” demagoguery resembles “color revolutions” across the West.  Leftists believe that they are entitled to reject the will of the voters.  They wish to overthrow elected governments and rule instead.  Despite protests, they are mad kings.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Democrats Are Mad Kings appeared first on LewRockwell.

John Bolton could spend the rest of his life in prison. President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor surrendered to authorities on Friday and pleaded not guilty to 18 counts tied to allegations that he abused his position by sharing classified information with people he shouldn’t have.

He collected and passed on classified information as part of a book he was writing, according to charging documents. He used his personal emails to send that information. And the email accounts were eventually hacked by Iran, the indictment alleges.

The charges were filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Maryland after a grand jury indicted him. Each count carries a maximum potential sentence of 10 years. At 76, he only needs to be convicted of a few to spend the rest of his life in jail.

But he says he’s innocent and the target of despotic persecution. “I look forward to the fight to defend my lawful conduct and to expose his abuse of power,” he said in a statement.

His former boss and supposed despot thinks his former employee had it coming. “He’s a bad guy. That’s the way it goes,” Trump told a reporter at the White House.

Bolton was President Trump’s national security advisor (NSA) from April 9, 2018, to September 10, 2019. He’s held several other government positions going back to the Ronald Reagan years, including assistant attorney general, undersecretary of the State Department, and ambassador to the United Nations.

Bolton is accused of holding classified national security documents at his Maryland house, and of sharing more than 1,000 pages of his daily activities as NSA with people he wasn’t allowed to. He faces eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of retention of national defense information.

Classified Information

The court document says Bolton “had access to some of the US Government’s most sensitive and closely guarded national security secrets.” He had top-secret security clearance. In September 2018, while in his post as NSA, Bolton had a SCIF (a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) installed in his home for storing classified information. (The SCIF was decertified after Trump fired him.) He also received intelligence reports and had meetings with many intel agencies, including the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency, as well as officials from foreign governments. But he took advantage of that access, court documents say:

From on or about April 9, 2018, through at least on or about August 22, 2025, Bolton abused his position as National Security Advisor by sharing more than a thousand pages of information about his day-to-day activities as the National Security Advisor — including information relating to the national defense which was classified up to the TOP SECRET/SCI [sensitive compartmented information] level — with two unauthorized individuals.

The indictment doesn’t identify the people he allegedly shared this information with, but it provides some clues. Individual 1 never had security clearance. Individual 2 also never had security clearance, but was related to him. The speculative consensus points to his wife and their daughter.

“Diaries”

Bolton allegedly used his AOL and Google emails to send classified information in the form of “diary-like entries.” Those entries ended up being printed and stored at his house, according to allegations.

Per court documents:

Bolton wrote many of these diary-like entries by transcribing his handwritten notes from his day’s activities into word processing documents, which he then electronically sent to Individuals 1 and 2 through a commercial non-governmental application. … At no point did Bolton have authorization to store or transmit the classified information that he sent to Individuals 1 and 2 via his personal electronic devices and accounts. Nor did, at any time, Individuals 1 or 2 have authorization to know or store the classified information that Bolton gave to them.

The information in these notes included details he learned from meetings with senior government officials, intelligence briefings, talks with foreign leaders, and foreign intel organizations. The court documents say Bolton regularly sent the people “diaries,” “including information classified up to the TOP SECRET.SCI level.”

After being fired in September 2019, Bolton was told he could no longer have classified information at his house. The indictment says that when that happened, he failed to tell the government that he had sent classified information to people he shouldn’t have.

Hacked by Iran?

Making matters worse, Bolton’s emails were later hacked by someone with supposed ties to Iran’s government, according to the indictment. “A representative for Bolton notified the U.S. government of the hack in or about July 2021, but did not tell the U.S. government that the account contained national defense information, including classified information, that Bolton had placed in the account from his time as national security adviser,” court files say.

Writing a Book

The reason Bolton took and passed on all this information, according to the charging document’s framing, is to put them in a book. He referred to the two people as his “editors.” After Bolton’s stint in the administration ended, his literary agent sent an email to a publisher about a book he was working on about his time as national security advisor.

The indictment noted:

In that email, the literary agent stated, among other things, that Bolton’s forthcoming book would include [his] impressions of his time as National Security Advisor “in a meticulously observed manner with direct quotes from all parties based on contemporaneous notes.”

On December 30, 2019, he submitted a manuscript titled The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir. By the time the book was published in July 2020, the classified information included in the 18 charges had been removed following a review by the National Security Council. He ended up making more than $1 million selling the rights to his book.

In June 2021, the government entered into a civil agreement with Bolton over his book. He agreed to provide all the classified information he had to the government. The following month, he told the FBI, through a representative, that his email was hacked by Iran. But he never told authorities that he had used that email to send classified information.

Still Had Classified Information in 2025

Fast-forward to 2025. On August 22, the FBI raided Bolton’s home. “Part of the material seized … included electronic files showing that Bolton transmitted his diary entries, many of which related to the national defense and contained classified information … through a non-governmental messaging application,” documents say. The feds seized classified documents.

The indictment spends a few pages highlighting public comments Bolton made between 2016 and 2025 to show that he knew how to handle classified information.

While the mainstream media likes to frame Bolton’s legal troubles — as well as James Comey’s and Leticia James’ — as revenge by a president who spent 10 years mired in false allegations and under legal threats, the FBI began probing this during before Trump began his second term. Even The New York Times pointed out that “his case gained momentum in the Biden administration.”

What’s concerning is that, assuming the indictment is accurate, it appears Bolton got a pass for years — likely so because he’s an Establishment man.

Bolton is as neocon as they get. As we said in August 2023, his “foreign-policy establishment credentials are impeccable,” and his main concerns have always been “standing up to evil dictators all over the world in the name of nebulous ‘interests,’ and maintaining the post-World War II status quo that includes the perpetuation and enlargement of the UN system and the continuation of NATO.”

While Trump’s Justice Department has shown some signs that it’s willing to make an effort to erode the two-tier justice system, there has so far been no accountability. Are things about to change?

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post John Bolton Faces Life in Prison appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Nuclear Expert Predicts How Launching a Single Nuke Could Wipe Out All of Humanity appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is one ever-pervasive and dangerous downside to the idea of the “big political tent” – The idea that all groups in the tent are equally entitled to dictate the terms within the tent. This is rarely the case.

In its weakest form, the big tent is an all encompassing movement reliant on temporary alliances between largely disconnected groups. It’s a gentleman’s agreement to stop the backbiting for a time so that a greater threat can be defeated. The problem is, some members of the big tent are more dedicated to the cause than others, and some simply don’t have the stomach to do what is necessary.

The reasons for their apprehension vary. Some people worry incessantly about optics, because true national reform is not as elegant and pure as they imagine it will be.  Preserving the heritage of a nation requires everyone to be on the same page to a point, and when a large contingent of people prefer total chaos it’s naive to think that a solution can be achieved without force.

For example, when around 25% of the country is rabidly obsessed with the Marxist deconstruction of the west, is a peaceful solution possible? So far, any action we take to reverse the efforts of leftist zealots has been met with widespread lies, instigation, sabotage, mob violence, political corruption and attempted assassination.

We have seen what happens when leftists are in power. We don’t have to guess anymore what life would be like under their thumb. We know.  Government sponsored mass censorship, vast indoctrination programs through media and entertainment, tyrannical efforts to force behaviors and socially engineer compliance, the ideological grooming of children, threats against people’s jobs, families and freedoms.

The progressive movement is largely single minded – They are a hive that acts solely for the advancement of the group. They have a limited understanding of reality, no moral compass, no guilt, no shame, no sense of principles or honor, no doubts that they are correct in their beliefs and they are completely dedicated to winning no matter the cost. They will blindly follow the demands of their gatekeepers without question.

On the bright side, woke ideology has been crushed when it comes to the battleground of public debate. They can’t win in a fair fight, which is why they assassinated Charlie Kirk and then cheered joyously over his corpse. They had an ecstatic experience because deep down they know they are losing the social discourse.

Kirk’s murder was the moment they had been craving; leftists threw the chessboard into the dirt and screamed like sociopathic children: “We will win because the rules don’t apply to us…”

As I’ve been saying for years, any group that opposes the woke mob will fail in the end if they can’t set aside the delusion that this situation is merely a disagreement between countrymen. It’s not. This is a war between utterly disparate enemies with completely different moral positions.

Diplomacy is a pipe dream and playing nice is a death sentence. It’s time to stop pretending that our national relationship can be mended. It’s over. In fact, it was over many years ago and only now are conservatives actually beginning to fight back. We’re done worrying about political optics. Either we change things dramatically right now, or we’ll never get another chance.

Some centrists, libertarians and moderate liberals are not as thick-skinned, though. When they joined the “big tent” they must have thought that Donald Trump securing the election was the final prize and that everything else would fall into place naturally. The election is a side note to the greater conflict taking place. It delays the inevitable melee but it doesn’t necessarily prevent it.

Trump is a short term stop-gap and if leftists are lucky the worst they will ever see is some ICE agents tackling illegals or the National Guard patrolling the ghetto because Democrat city leaders won’t police or prosecute properly. They have no clue what is coming if average conservatives decide to take matters into their own hands. In other words, Trump is being nice and leftists are oblivious.

The deportation of illegal immigrants is one subject that motivated the majority of Americans to stand against the progressive left and their globalist patrons. Democrat’s were flooding the US with untold millions of illegal migrants on top of the millions that had already accumulated over the course of the past few decades. And guess what?  Nearly half of  Latino voters support deportations, too.

However, some centrists like Joe Rogan are getting cold feet over the situation. He argues that ICE operations are going too far and that arresting non-criminals and illegals present in the country for 20 years is a “horrific look”.

This is where the big tent idea has its drawbacks. Conservative movements often fail to root out radical leftists because they feel the need to appeal to pie-in-the-sky centrist notions of diplomacy and fairness. These are people that worry about negative media response and cracks in the federation of anti-woke groups. They’re always thinking about the next election and not what we need to do right now, thus, nothing ever gets done.

Let’s be honest, conservatives created the tent and we should run it.  We were fighting the far-left PC crowd for years while most everyone else called us “conspiracy theorists”.  People like Rogan jumped on the bandwagon much later.  We’ve allowed the Overton Window to be shifted to the radical left, but it’s not because of leftists.  It’s because of centrists who don’t want to get their hands dirty.  We’re always trying to make them happy.  Centrists fear being accused of authoritarianism more than anything and the political left knows it.

Rogan is right more often than not, but he’s completely wrong on the issue of ICE arrests. An illegal that has been living in the US for 20 years should be at the TOP of the list for deportation. They have been feeding off the US economy, taking jobs that should have gone to Americans, and they’ve been doing it for a painfully long time.

They indirectly help Democrats to rig voting districts and the Electoral College by inflating census numbers. Around 60% of them tap into welfare subsidies and healthcare programs that cost US taxpayers billions. They eat up the housing market, helping to inflate home prices and rental costs. They drive down wages for legal citizens by working for 30% less.

The biggest insult, though, is that the people Rogan is talking about have had 20 years or more to become a naturalized citizen and they chose not to. They were either too lazy or their loyalties remain with their country of origin. Why should we give them special treatment?

In terms of the optics of the arrests, illegals are criminals. All of them. Trump never promised to only arrest migrants that commit crimes after they cross the border. He promised the opposite. This idea was perpetuated by Democrat leaders who were trying to control the debate. No, all illegals need to go. Not only those that leftists and centrists deem to be non-threats at the moment, the law must apply to all of them equally.

If the concern is “brutality”, then I have to say that ICE Is going easy on these criminals. Easier than I would, at any rate.

Don’t forget that deportation raids and aggressive arrests would not be needed if migrants would simply self deport. Around 1.6 million have already done this; they are the smart ones. Furthermore, has Rogan considered the possibility that being harsh with deportations today inspires more self-deportations and less violence in the future? In other words, we get ugly right now so that we don’t have to get ugly tomorrow.

I have no sympathy for illegals who defy deportation after years of exploiting the system, refusing to work for naturalized citizenship, refusing to assimilate and even getting violent when they’re caught.

I also have no sympathy for woke activists who try to interfere with perfectly lawful arrests. If they get their asses kicked in the process of sabotaging deportations, then all the better.

Illegal migrants do NOT have the same due process rights under federal law as native citizens. Due process for an illegal only requires that ICE verify that the person is a foreigner and that they do not have a proper visa or greencard. That’s it. No courts, no jury, no appeals, no playing games. They can be quickly booted, and this is a good thing.

It’s interesting to me that globalist propaganda has been so effective in brainwashing liberals and centrists that they continue to think that basic immigration laws common to most nations around the world are somehow draconian and ugly when applied in the US. Only the US gets this kind of criticism. Only American conservatives are called “monsters” for wanting secure borders and a country free from foreign invasion.

The US is not an “economic zone” open to the rest of the planet. It’s not a perpetual “melting pot”. We are not obligated to welcome the third world into our home. They’re not allowed to kick up their feet on our couch. They were not invited.

And, if they refuse to leave voluntarily, then yes, we get to beat them into submission and toss them back where they came from. Most Americans support this. We don’t care how it looks. We’re no longer concerned about the fears of centrists.

What are they going to do? Vote for the Democrats? Only to suffer through another 4 years of Biden-era cultural Marxism, worrying endlessly about being canceled from their jobs and their social media and their podcasts? Worrying endlessly if their kids are going to go to school only to be groomed by some woke circus freak teacher?

I think not. I think they will realize the stupidity of that kind of endeavor, set aside their pearl clutching and accept that the deportations being enforced today are EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers would have done if they were faced with a similar situation. It’s the centrists that have strayed from the spirit of our Republic, not conservatives.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Joe Rogan Criticizes The Harsh Tactics Of ICE: Here’s Why He’s Wrong appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Trump administration, through its attorney general Pam Bondi, announced on August 7 it has doubled a reward—from $25 million to $50 million—for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. According to the administration, Maduro is in cahoots with drug cartels, specifically Cártel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns). 

Bondi accused Maduro of heading up one of the world’s most notorious drug trafficking operations. She said his alleged involvement in the drug trade is a threat to the national security of the United States. Trump’s AG said Maduro utilizes “foreign terrorist and criminal organizations,” including the Tren de Aragua gang, the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel, in addition to Cartel of the Suns, to traffic cocaine in the United States.

“He is one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world and a threat to our national security. Therefore, we’ve doubled his reward to $50 million,” Bondi said in a video posted on X. 

While there is little compelling evidence of Maduro’s involvement in the drug trade, it is known that the Venezuelan National Guard and military began to buy, store, transfer and distribute cocaine in the mid-2000s. Prior to direct involvement, the Venezuelan military extorted narcos in the transfer of drug shipments.

“According to InSight Crime, a theory as to what may have motivated this move is that Colombian narcos began to pay the military in drugs rather than cash. This forced the Venezuelans to seek markets of their own,” writes intelligence analyst Javier Sutil Toledano. 

Venezuela might not have become involved in the drug trade if not for the multi-billion-dollar Plan Colombia security program signed with the United States. Billed as an anti-narcotics effort, the real purpose of the plan was to eradicate guerrilla movements aligned against corporate petroleum and mining activities. Colombia Plan maintained a close relationship with death squads and organized paramilitary forces, notes Noam Chomsky. 

Plan Colombia’s war on guerrilla movements forced FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) to move operations to the border with Venezuela and corrupt officials became involved in the drug trade. The narrative claims FARC is a major distributor of cocaine. This is, however, an exaggeration.

“In standard US terminology, the FARC forces are ‘narcoguerrillas,’ a useful concept as a cover for counterinsurgency,” writes Chomsky. “It is agreed—and FARC leaders say—that they rely for funding on coca production, which they tax, as they tax other businesses.” 

Klaus Nyholm, at the time head of the UN Drug Control Program, believes “the guerrillas are something different from the traffickers,” while Andean drug specialist Ricardo Vargas argues the guerrillas were “primarily focused on taxation of illicit crops,” not trafficking. Moreover, FARC called for “a development plan for the peasants” that would “allow eradication of coca on the basis of alternative crops.” Vargas added that Colombian peasants grow cocoa plants “because of the crisis in the agricultural sector of Latin American countries, escalated by the general economic crisis in the region,” a crisis exacerbated by neoliberal trade policies. 

In 2013, it was reported that FARC, while in the process of demobilization, was taken over piecemeal by the Gaitanistas (Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia, aka Clan del Golfo), described as a rightwing Colombian neo-paramilitary group and the largest drug cartel in Colombia. It is believed the group is comprised of either reservists or retired professional soldiers. Colombian General Leonardo Alfonso Barrero Gordillo worked with Clan del Golfo and its paramilitary groups, according to human rights organizations. 

“Although Maduro was not among the early Venezuelan officials tied to narco-trafficking during the previous Hugo Chávez presidency, a federal indictment filed in New York shows his rise through the ranks of the Cartel of the Suns,” claims the Miami Herald.

The news outlet mentions an indictment that claims Maduro and the cartel aimed “to flood the United States with cocaine and inflict the drug’s harmful and addictive effects on users in this country.”

CIA Runs Cocaine to Fund Black Ops

The Trump administration is less interested in the “harmful and addictive effects” of cocaine on Americans than the ongoing US effort to overthrow the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and destroy  the Bolivarian Revolution initially led by the late  former President Hugo Chávez. If Trump and crew were sincerely interested in stopping the importation of cocaine, they would turn their attention to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Joël van der Reijden, an independent Dutch researcher, believes CIA involvement in the drug trade is one of the most important covered up conspiracies of all time. The CIA inherited the drug business from Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage (SDECE), a now defunct French intelligence agency. The operation was “upscaled” with heroin in Vietnam and later a similar template was used in South America with cocaine. It is said US intelligence was involved in drug trafficking with Cosa Nostra (the Sicilian Mafia) before the establishment of the CIA in 1947. The Southeast Asian “Golden Triangle” of heroin production and distribution included early CIA notables, including Frank Wisner, Paul Helliwell, Claire Chennault, William Pawley, and Tommy Corcoran. 

In the 1980s, the CIA oversaw Nicaraguan Contra arms and cocaine trafficking. The operation was revealed when American commercial airline pilot Barry Seal was investigated for working with the Medellin Cartel in Colombia. Seal had a relationship with the CIA.

“Barry Seal was a veteran of both the drug trade and the intelligence business,” write Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn. “Seal’s first contact with the CIA came in the 1960s while he served as a pilot for the US Army’s Special Forces division. He left the army in 1965 to become, at the age of twenty-six, a pilot for TransWorld Airlines, and it’s apparent that Seal continued his relationship with the Agency during his employment with the airline.”

According to van der Reijden,

“it is virtually certain that both [George H.W.] Bush and [Bill] Clinton, the latter as governor of Arkansas, were shielding Seal’s operations from law enforcement… the  [CIA director] Casey-Bush-North alliance destroyed the DEA’s operation aimed at bringing down the entire Medellin Cartel when they decided to leak the Contra sting operation of their asset Barry Seal to the media,” thus allowing Reagan to accuse the Sandinista government of drug trafficking and force Congress to end the ban on US military aid to the Contras. 

CIA cocaine distribution in the United States was exposed in the 1990s by journalist Gary Webb in a three-part series published by the Mercury News. The newspaper series documented how profits from the sale of crack cocaine in Los Angeles in the 1980s was siphoned to the Contras, the CIA mercenary army attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government. 

Additionally, in 1993 the Justice Department investigated “allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials,” The New York Times reported.

“CIA ties to international drug trafficking date to the Korean War. In 1949, two of Chiang Kai-shek’s defeated generals, Li Wen Huan and Tuan Shi Wen, marched their Third and Fifth Route armies, with families and livestock, across the mountains to northern Burma. Once installed, the peasant soldiers began cultivating the crop they knew best, the opium poppy.”

Panama Invasion Redux?

In December, 1989, President George H.W. Bush ordered the US military to invade Panama City. The invasion was codenamed Operation Just Cause, and the supposed just cause was the arrest of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, a long time CIA asset, on drug trafficking charges. Noriega received protection from DEA investigations due to his “special relationship with the CIA” (see Cockburn and St. Clair, Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs, and the Press, 1998). He was instrumental the effort to launder drug money while also receiving financial support from drug dealers. According to Gary Webb (Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, 1999), Noriega was involved in the CIA effort to smuggle cocaine into the United States. 

After Noriega was exposed in The New York Times as a participant in the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan tried to have the Panamanian leader step down, but he refused to do so. The notorious Elliot Abrams and the Pentagon agitated for an invasion of Panama. Reagan declined, afraid it would hurt the upcoming Bush presidential campaign. However, after his successor assumed office, the plan to get rid of the exposed CIA asset Manuel Noriega became more urgent, especially after the press called George H.W. Bush a “wimp” for not going after Noriega. The new president was berated after he called for hunting down major drug dealers and then not acting on Noriega. 

27,684 US troops and over 300 aircraft invaded on December 20. Explosions and fire ripped through the heavily populated El Chorrillo neighborhood in downtown Panama City.

“El Chorrillo was invaded, destroyed, burned, and desecrated on that fateful day,” writes Argelis Wesley. “Thousands fled barefoot and terrified, many watched as their homes collapsed under the flames and disappeared in the chaos. Others witnessed point-blank executions and the violation of fundamental rights. Some chose to leave the place they had called home since birth.”

She writes that years later,

“we still do not know how many people died or how many bodies were buried in mass graves. Nor do we fully understand how this brutal incident affected the mental health and well-being of El Chorrillo’s generations, from children to adults.”

On January 3, 1990, Noriega surrendered to US forces. He was convicted of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering, and sentenced to 40 years in prison. He was subsequently extradited to France, and then back to Panama, where he died during surgery to remove a brain tumor. 

The invasion of Panama was sold to the American people as protection of its citizens abroad (Reagan used this as well during the invasion of Grenada), “restoring democracy,” and installing a friendly government in Panama. The objective of taking out an “off the reservation” asset is rarely mentioned. 

On August 8, President Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare options for attacking drug cartels now designated as terrorist groups.

“President Trump’s top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told ABC News.

This might be considered little more than Trumpian bluster if not for the fact Trump seriously considered attacking Venezuela during his previous term. In August, 2018, during a discussion on imposing sanctions on Venezuela,

“Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?” reported the Associated Press. National security adviser H.R. McMaster dissuaded Trump of the idea. 

During his second term, Trump has become more belligerent and irrational. He violated constitutional and international law when he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites. In his previous term, Trump assassinated the respected commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, while the military officer was on a peace mission. His administration bombed Yemen on several occasions. It has provided a genocidal state with advanced munitions to kill Palestinians, more than the Biden administration sent. 

Considering the level criticism leveled at Trump for his campaign promise reversals, including ending forever war, and the threat of the Epstein scandal refusing to fade into the background, it is a possibility Trump will send troops to Venezuela to abduct Nicolás Maduro as a “terrorist” drug trafficker. Venezuela has long prepared for an invasion by the United States.  The National Bolivarian Militia is a force comprised of civilian volunteers and was founded by Chávez in 2008 to support the country’s armed forces, Newsweek reported. 

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Trump’s Plan To Invade Venezuela and Abduct ‘Narcoterrorist’ Maduro appeared first on LewRockwell.

According to America’s Whore Media, yesterday the No Kings Protests Drew 7 Million Americans at 2,700 separate rallies

The No Kings protest is a form of insurrection.  The aim is to stop the functioning of democracy in the name of democracy by branding the reduction of DEI, closing of borders, and deportation of illegal aliens, for which Americans voted, as King Trump’s personal policy,  The two Jews who organized the No Kings protests, Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg, said “Today, millions of Americans stood together to reject authoritarianism and remind the world that our democracy belongs to the people, not to one man’s ambition.” What Levin and Greenberg mean is that America belongs to the Democrat far left.

Ask yourselves, who financed this enormous undertaking?  George Soros?  Israel?  The Democrat National Committee?  

If Trump is really against war, he can stop funding wars.  Ukraine is financed by Washington.  The Israeli genocide of Palestine is financed by Washington.  The armed intervention against Venezuela, being prepared under false pretenses just as was the “war on terror,” is a Trump project.  The same for the pressure on Iran that is leading to war.

Trump could easily stop the wars.  So why is he causing wars?

Instead, he should address the war against America that is being unleashed by Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg and their financiers, by Democrat mayors, city councils, and governors who defy federal law and protect illegal aliens from their crime of illegal entry as if they are American citizens, by the anti-American media that ruthlessly attacks traditional Americans and every politician who attempts to serve Americans’ interest, and by the leftwing ideologues that anti-American Democrats with the complicity of insouciant Republicans have institutionalized in the judiciary, especially at the District Court level.

Dear President Trump:  Our main enemies are at home.  Our only foreign enemy is Israel.  Please defend OUR COUNTRY.  Why are you working so hard to create more foreign enemies for America?

Don Lemon Designates Illegal Aliens “Citizens” and calls on People of Color to Arm Themselves Against Federal Agents

“Take up arms,” urges Lemon.  This is an act of insurrection.  Why isn’t Lemon arrested?

The post The No Kings Protest Is Insurrection appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today the Ukrainian former president Vladimir Zelenski will be in Washington to convince U.S. President Donald Trump to further turn the screws on Russia.

A call yesterday between President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Trump was initiated by the Russians to preempt any concessions from Trump to Ukraine.

A major headache for the Russians was the potential introduction of U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles onto the battlefield. While these weapons are old, and can easily be defended against, they are, in principle, nuclear capable. They are also complex and can not be fired without the input from U.S. satellites, U.S. intelligence analysis and specialized software.

Tomahawks are naval missiles. There are less than a handful of ground launchers which were only recently introduced to the U.S. military. Any launch of a Tomahawk from Ukrainian ground would thus have to be done by the U.S. military. Any U.S. firing of a potentially nuclear armed missile towards Moscow would have to have serious consequences.

Russia would HAVE to respond to such an attack with a direct attack on major U.S. assets. Otherwise its means of (nuclear) deterrence would lose of all of their values.

Putin wanted to avoid that situation and the decisions that would have followed from it. Thus his call to Donald Trump.

So far that part of the call of seems to have been successful:

In recent days, Mr Trump had shown an openness to selling Ukraine long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, even as Mr Putin warned that such a move would further strain the US-Russian relationship.

But following Thursday’s call with Mr Putin, Mr Trump appeared to downplay the prospects of Ukraine getting the missiles, which have a range of about 995 miles (1,600km).

“We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too,” Mr Trump said.

“We have a lot of them, but we need them. I mean, we can’t deplete our country.”

After the call Trump announced that there would soon be a new summit between him and President Putin:

President Putin and I will then meet in an agreed upon location, Budapest, Hungary, to see if we can bring this “inglorious” War, between Russia and Ukraine, to an end.

It is notable that The Russian readout was much less committed:

In this context, it is worthy of note that the presidents discussed the possibility of holding another personal meeting. This is indeed a very significant development. It was agreed that representatives of both countries would immediately begin preparations for the summit, which could potentially be organised in Budapest, for instance.

It is doubtful that any new meeting would lead to results.

Trump wants to stop the war in Ukraine because the U.S./NATO proxy force in form the Ukrainian army gets currently beaten to pulp. A multiyear pause is needed to refresh the Ukrainian army, to make and deliver more weapons for it and to prepare for another attempt to defeat Russia.

Russia will not commit to that. It wants to resolve the root cause of the war, the steady NATO march towards Russia’s border, once and for all. Any pause or ceasefire would defeat that purpose.

The difference between those positions is the reason why the August summit in Alaska had ended badly. Despite both sides lauding the outcome it was obvious that the summit had been cut short. It had ended without a common readout or press conference. After the summit President Trump also extended his support for the Ukrainian side of the conflict by allowing U.S. intelligence to be used in attacks on Russian oil infrastructure.

A new Financial Times piece on the previous summit has some background information on this (archived):

With just a handful of advisers present, Putin rejected the US offer of sanctions relief for a ceasefire, insisting the war would end only if Ukraine capitulated and ceded more territory in the Donbas.

The Russian president then delivered a rambling historical discursion spanning medieval princes such as Rurik of Novgorod and Yaroslav the Wise, along with the 17th century Cossack chieftain Bohdan Khmelnytsky — figures he often cites to support his claim Ukraine and Russia are one nation.

Taken aback, Trump raised his voice several times and at one point threatened to walk out, the people said. He ultimately cut the meeting short and cancelled a planned lunch where broader delegations were due to discuss economic ties and co-operation.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky was the Cossack hetman who in 1654 voluntarily subordinate his people to the Russian Tsar:

After a series of negotiations, it was agreed that the Cossacks would accept overlordship by the Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. To finalize the treaty, a Russian embassy led by boyar Vasily Buturlin came to Pereiaslav, where, on 18 January 1654, the Cossack Rada was called and the treaty concluded. [..] The treaty legitimized Russian claims to the capital of Kievan Rus’ and strengthened the tsar’s influence in the region. Khmelnytsky needed the treaty to gain a legitimate monarch’s protection and support from a friendly Orthodox power.

I see no reason for hope that a new summit would change the positions of the parties or the outcome. Putin’s position towards the U.S. has only hardened:

“Whatever they want, they do. But what they are doing now in Ukraine is not thousands of miles away from our national borders; it is on our doorstep. And they must realize that we simply have nowhere else to retreat to.”

The promise of the new summit is still positive as it stretches the time to an eventual further escalation. More time is of advantage to the Russian side. It allows for the current campaign to de-energize Ukraine to have impact on the mood in the country and on the willingness of its government to agree to serious concessions.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post A Preemptive Putin-Trump Call and the Prospects of a New Summit appeared first on LewRockwell.

According to- discoveryalert.com.au: The push for a cashless society represents more than just technological evolution—it’s a coordinated effort occurring at multiple levels of government, financial institutions, and corporations worldwide. This transition is reshaping how we interact with money and raising significant questions about financial freedom and privacy.

The cashless society is a necessary step in preparation for the mark of the beast.

The mark of the beast, btw, is a concept based on a couple of short passages from The Revelation (end of chapter 13 and start of chapter 14), which say that there will eventually be a one world government just before Jesus returns, and the spiritual leader of that government will cause people everywhere to get a mark put in their right hand or in their forehead, without which they will not be able to buy or sell.

What we have used for centuries for buying and selling is cash (or checks). We have also progressed to credit cards.

So all of these would need to be replaced with the mark, in order for the prophecy to come true.

Is cashless society in World a bad step?

Cashless Means Automatic

If money is easy to spend, it is also easy to take. Convenience can easily become tyranny. Automatic payments that come directly from your bank account illustrate the point.)

Below Is First 9 Major Risks of a Cashless Society:

1.Risk of Confiscation

The convenience of digital money that allows you to spend your money more easily, also makes it easier for banks, governments and thieves to take it.The message to depositors is clear- when you put money in a bank you are a creditor of the bank and if it goes bust you are at the bottom of the list of creditors. Your money** will be seized as part of any approved plan, perhaps even before the broke bank files for bankruptcy.

Your bank account can be raided by government authorities, like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without notice or reason given. If the IRS believes your bank account deposit and/or withdrawals activity is suspicious and/or may involve a pattern designed to avoid reporting requirements, they may seize your account.

Think your money is safe in the bank? Think again.

2. Risk of Theft

Digital cash a bit of Trap-it can be stolen.Think digital money is safer than cash and can’t be stolen?

3. Crime is Easier

Some actually believe that in a cashless society that crime will go down and drug dealers will go out of business. Think again.

In a cashless society, theft will occur on line and in far larger amounts than cash heists. An online thief never has to confront his victim, commit violence, crack a safe, get past an alarm system, dog or armed guards and carry away his loot. Rather, in a cashless society, the cyber thief merely has to hack the systems where the ‘money” is. The online heist involves no risk of death or threat to the thief’s personal safety and can be done from anywhere in the world.

4. Risk of System Failure

Without cash, the value of currency would have no independent value outside a functioning banking system to which you have access. Your money wouldn ‘work’ without a functioning banking system. If the banking system is down due to a power outage, solar flare, financial crisis, Internet failure, hack or network crash, your money is unavailable and potentially lost. If back up files are lost how do you prove you had $15,000 in your account?

5. Risk of Being Exiled From the System

Even if the digital banking system was 100% fool proof, you may end up being shut out of the system for wrong doing (actual or alleged), bad credit or failure to pay banking fees. Or you may be the victim of identity theft and as a “precaution” your account may be closed. Without access to the banking system, how will you pay your bills and buy items you need?

6. Results in a Loss of Freedom

While going cashless may be convenient when you choose to buy something, but if a purchase is thrust officiously upon you by government order, your money can be removed from your account to pay for it, conveniently of course. This type of forced convenience results in a removal of freedom of choice of how you may wish to spend your money.

7. Loss of property rights

Property rights are the foundation of a free society. If you don’t have control, ready access or the ability to spend your money when and as you please, you do not really own it.Rather, you are a co-owner with the currency issuer (the bank) who has veto rights over your use of the currency.

8. Loss of Privacy

In a cashless society there is the loss of privacy. Digital money offers the convenience of allowing you to track and budget your money online. Such a system, however, also leaves a permanent digital foot print of where you spent your money, accesible to just about anyone who has access to your account. (crimminal hackers and government agencies). A common objection to this privacy invasion is that “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about”.

9. Loss of Understanding Value & Responsiblity

Without cash, consumers are no longer market participants that evaluate tangible value based on how much cash they have in their wallets, but mindless spenders without a sense of the value of the items they are purchasing or a sense of understanding of their actual cost after incurring bank and credit card interest fees. (still sky high even after years of zero interest rate policies across the globe).

In a society that uses cash, acts like making change and giving tips provide market participants with a tangible sense of economic value. Children that grow up saving money in piggy banks and counting their pennies, nickels and dimes learn the value of money through the tactil experience of handling money.

A cashless society turns money and value into digital abstractions as defined and controlled by the banks and central planners.

This article was originally published on Preppgroup.

The post First Major Risks of a Cashless Society appeared first on LewRockwell.

“No Kings” may be the first time I can recall clapping for a bunch of entitled, Starbuck’s drinking, middle-aged lefties and global communist money launderers.  Is our national conversation getting closer to real anti-authoritarianism, even anti-statism?

If we rely on the No Kings crowd as an indicator, the answer is no.  They demand more government, modern monetary theory at home and abroad, and the replacement of Trump with a President who won’t challenge the other two branches to do their jobs.  Most are content to ignore the Constitution, not exercise it. The selected color for this “revolution” is yellow for optimism; the “color of democracy.”  There’s a lot of black as well, begging the question of whether they are really just Proud Boys in ladysuits. The expert troll himself jumped in, with his bright yellow tie just a few days before the No Kings rally.

Any protest against authoritarianism and the state must be welcomed, in the mode of Thomas Paine.  Radical, brave, and with only his life to lose, he valued independence of self and mind, always chose reason over the stupid crowd, believed that blind faith in the state could be corrected by facts and logic. He boldly welcomed trouble in his time, so the next generation might have peace.

We all have a little Tom Paine in us, and no doubt we are blessed with a multitude of modern crises in which to nurture that bold seed of sheer contempt for the criminal state. Those of us who quell our Tom Paine urges and sensibilities will indeed lose badly.  Beyond remaining slaves and dying as slaves, we will condemn our children to both slavery and war.  On the other hand, what better time than now to exult and celebrate the man who understood that “…taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes.”

We might assume, from the Declaration of Independence, and from the fundamentals of the Philadelphia trick, that the supreme cause for which man forms a “government” is liberty, and from liberty, man garners peace and prosperity.  Paine wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

I suspect most Americans – far beyond the mostly urban and purely political “No Kings” celebrants – would agree with Tom Paine that it adds insult to injury that we are forced to pay in full, and obey unconditionally, the very criminal and obscene government that oppresses us and much of the world.

This unifying concern is gaining momentum, creating passion, and catching fire.  The humanitarians and justice seekers among us rage that our dollars go to murder unarmed people, individually and en masse, by our gleeful leaders in Congress and the White House.  American nationalists seek decentralization and redirection of federal tax receipts from overseas and the counties around DC into the small towns, roads, bridges, and domestic quality of life, and even – most radically – back into the people’s pockets.

“Small government conservatives” while largely extinct, sought a government so tiny and weak it could be drowned in a bathtub. This sentiment, credited to Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist, was perhaps articulated only decades before its time.  The No Kings movement is certainly ready to conduct a small suffocation or two in DC, and who would oppose it?

It is still too much for most Americans to look into the abyss of state evil.  Our lived fairy tales of state assassination of leaders, journalists, and Presidents, of spying and mass surveillance, of mass murder at home and abroad – frighten more than enrage.   The federal war on the very natural rights it was chartered to protect, so acutely observed today, is a cause for only a semblance of revolt, a shadow of discontent.  In too many ways, state actions and its agendas are working as intended – fueling latent fears, promoting a certain kind of self-censorship, encouraging a wide-eyed hunkering down rather than a steely-eyed standing up.

Thomas Paine differentiated between summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, and those who stand fast in a hard fight for liberty, against the odds.  Today, soldiers and patriots alike need to hear the advice of Whitney Webb, where she explains the active state engineering of desperation and the cause it serves.

Perhaps we can learn from the recent resignations of our so-called “warrior” class, like SOUTHCOM’s Admiral Holsey and SOCOM’s General Fenton, and Marine Colonel Doug Krugman who retired with a public letter explaining that the Constitution, the law, is his commander, not politicians.  I think Paine would appreciate the sentiment. Thus far, there is no sign that these retirements, or the many that will follow, are evidence of anything other than the summer soldier and sunshine patriot.  But we shall see.

There was a recent moment in social science where a mental disease was created, mainly for children and teenagers, called “opposition(al) defiant disorder.”  In true Brave New World fashion, it is cured pharmacologically, and its warning signs may be increasingly familiar to many of us long past childhood.

A mass American movement against the state is rising, but it is not yet clear if this rise will be coherent, or incoherent, inchoate or completed and perfected.  Uncertainty is a natural part of the crisis in which we find ourselves, with limited information, despite having the whole of human knowledge and history at our fingertips.  But nothing can stop us today from closely watching our enemy, the state, and noting that it is growing financially precarious, representationally and ethically unbalanced, and increasingly frantic and increasingly evil.

Thomas Paine would see great opportunities today for real liberty to be regained, and as he wrote in Common Sense, he would recognize both the inevitability of change and the danger of waiting by the sidelines.  His 1776 question, “Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period…?” must be answered by each of us, and increasingly, it is being answered by our actions more than our words.  What a time to be alive!

The post Will We See a New Era of Truly Popular Anti-Statism? appeared first on LewRockwell.

While American businesses and consumers are bearing the burden of higher costs from tariffs and inflation, the United States is providing a $20 billion bailout to Argentina’s Milei regime.  This bailout is separate from the $20 billion bailout given by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to Argentina earlier this year. Argentina is by far the largest debtor to the IMF.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US has reached a $20 billion currency swap agreement with Argentina’s central bank, allowing it to exchange Argentine pesos for the US dollar. CNN reported that the US also bought, “an undisclosed amount of Argentine pesos.”

The bailout would greatly benefit Rob Citrone, a billionaire hedge fund manager with substantial investments in Argentina. “Bessent’s personal and professional relationship with Citrone has spanned decades,” according to journalist Judd Legum.

“It’s unclear why the Trump administration is providing a de facto bailout of the Argentinian peso when there is no significant financial or economic relationship between the two economies,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the audit and consulting firm, RSM.

Furthermore, we should question whether the US bailout of Argentina is motivated by the Milei regime’s enthusiastic support of the US and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We should acknowledge that President Trump is a puppet of political donor Miriam Adelson and Israeli Prime Minister (and de-facto US President) Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ordinary people suffer the consequences of the reckless economic policies of their politicians. The Argentinian people should demand the immediate removal of the incompetent Milei regime and the American people should demand the immediate removal of the treasonous Netanyahu-Trump regime.

The post Milei Bailout appeared first on LewRockwell.

We are all familiar with the wonderful descriptive term, “the welfare-warfare state.” Ron Paul frequently uses it, as does Lew Rockwell, the late Justin Raimondo, Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, and myself. Murray Rothbard coined it in his brilliant essay, “The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique,” in Marvin E. Gettleman & David Mermelstein, ed., The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism, 1967. This is one of three crucial articles by Rothbard which defines and outlines this important concept describing our society today and how it became that way. The other two articles are: “Origins of the Welfare State in America,” and “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals.” 

The concept has its origin with Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who united Germany under his doctrine of “Blood and Iron,” at the same time his American counterpart was waging his own war of coercive national unification. Bismarck, in creating the ideological justification for what became “the welfare-warfare state,” gave birth to the paradigm which continues to invigorate and mold the American political landscape of today.

Because of the tremendous number of key American intellectuals who studied in Germany during the time of Bismarck in preparation for their doctorate degrees (or in post-doctoral studies), and who returned emboldened and willing to use the state to transform society, the Progressive Movement was born. Although not household names today, these highly influential men included Richard Ely, Albion Woodbury Small, W. E. B. DuBois, Franz Boas, Walter Weyl, Nicholas Murray Butler, Edmund J. James, Walter Rauschenbusch, E. R. A. Seligman, Henry C. Adams, John W. Burgess, William James, George Santayana, Henry Farnam, George Herbert Mead, Frank Taussig, Simon Patten, John Bates Clark, Herbert Baxter Adams, Arthur T. Hadley. Each of them has had a long lasting impact on American society through their ideas and the subsequent generations these ideas shaped.

Ideas do not exist in a sterile vacuum but are often intertwined and serendipitously related to each other. Such is the case of various statist doctrines that came to fruition in the 19th century, and which still dramatically affect our world today. “Scientific racism,” “social Darwinism,” eugenics, Comtean positivism, imperialism, and “social imperialism,” were pseudoscientific rationales for the expansionary and invasive welfare-warfare state at home and abroad.

As Princeton’s Thomas C. Leonard noted in his seminal article, “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era:”

Progressive opposition to laissez faire was motivated by a set of deep intellectual commitments regarding the relationship between social science, social scientific expertise and right governance. The progressives were committed to 1) the explanatory power of scientific (especially statistical) social inquiry to get at the root causes of social and economic problems; 2) the legitimacy of social control, which derives from a holist conception of society as prior to and greater than the sum of its constituent individuals; 3) the efficacy of social control via expert management of public administration; where 4) expertise is both sufficient and necessary for the task of wise public administration.

The post Roots of the Welfare-Warfare State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier this week my wife Dawn and I had the joyous opportunity to meet up with Drs Sam and Mark Bailey in Salt Lake City, Utah where they’d come to be the Keynote Speakers at the Weston A Price Foundation’s Wise Traditions Conference.

And now you can attend their Live-Stream Presentations, October 18, 19 & 20th, 2025 – along with many other amazing presenters.

Plus, you can get a CD or USB record of the entire conference, HERE.

Here’s the schedule:

Friday, October 18, 7.30-9.30pm (MDT)

Dr Samantha Bailey: SECRETS OF A STAGED PANDEMIC

Saturday, October 19

11.00am-12.15pm (MDT)

Dr Samantha Bailey: THE TRUTH ABOUT LYME DISEASE

6:30–9:30pm (MDT)

Dr Mark Bailey: AWARDS BANQUET AND KEYNOTE: VIROLOGY’S FINAL DAYS

Sunday, October 20

10.45am-12pm Dr Mark Bailey: A LOGICAL END TO VIROLOGY

1:30–2:45pm (MDT)

Drs Mark Bailey, Samantha Bailey, Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman “Virus Deniers Unite Panel”

Don’t miss this rare event!

IMPORTANT!

If you miss this event please go to their website where you can watch their MANY videos and read their Paradigm Changing papers, HERE.

Highly Recommended

The post Meet Drs Sam & Mark Bailey appeared first on LewRockwell.