Aggregatore di feed

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/echi-di-tirannia)

Anni dopo l'imposizione dell'obbligo di vaccinazione contro il Covid-19, mi ritrovo in uno stato di riflessione, alle prese con i cambiamenti epocali che si sono verificati in quel periodo. Il mondo che conoscevamo è cambiato radicalmente, quasi da un giorno all'altro. Gli stati hanno emanato provvedimenti drastici e libertà che molti di noi davano per scontate sono improvvisamente diventate privilegi. È stato un periodo pieno di paura, confusione e pressione. Ora, con il senno di poi, il peso di ciò che è accaduto sembra ancora più pesante.

Ho capito che abbiamo vissuto una delle violazioni dei diritti umani più sconcertanti della storia recente. Al centro di questa crisi si trova il passaggio di due Rubiconi: l'erosione del Primo emendamento della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti e la violazione del Codice di Norimberga. Entrambi sono stati creati sulla scia di tragedie storiche: una dopo la Rivoluzione americana, l'altra dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale. Entrambe sono fondamentali, concepite per salvaguardare i diritti umani e proteggere dagli abusi di potere. Trasgredendo questi confini, ci siamo addentrati in un territorio pericoloso che richiede urgenti riflessioni e azioni concrete.

Le prime regole: pilastri della libertà e dell'etica

La garanzia della libertà di parola sancita dal Primo Emendamento è una pietra angolare della democrazia, nata dal crogiolo della rivoluzione contro la tirannia. I nostri Padri fondatori, avendo sperimentato in prima persona l'oppressione di un governo che soffocava il dissenso, sancirono questo diritto a proteggere la libera circolazione delle informazioni, consentendo alle persone di ascoltare tutti i lati di una questione e prendere le proprie decisioni. Durante la pandemia abbiamo oltrepassato questo confine sacro. La censura ha prevalso e le prospettive alternative sui vaccini, comprese le legittime preoccupazioni sulla loro sicurezza e sui loro effetti a lungo termine, sono state soppresse. I media generalisti, i social media e i governi hanno fatto eco a un messaggio univoco: “Sicuro ed efficace”. Le voci dissidenti sono state etichettate come disinformazione e messe a tacere, tradendo il principio stesso che avrebbe dovuto prevenire tali abusi di potere.

Altrettanto importante è il Codice di Norimberga, emanato dopo gli orrori della Seconda guerra mondiale, il quale avrebbe dovuto costituire uno standard internazionale inderogabile. La sua prima e più importante regola afferma: “Il consenso volontario del soggetto è assolutamente essenziale”. Questo principio è così importante che, dopo i Processi di Norimberga, vennero giustiziate persone per averlo violato. Eppure, durante la pandemia, abbiamo oltrepassato anche questo limite.

Le persone venivano costrette a vaccinarsi sotto la minaccia dell'esclusione dalla vita pubblica. Ci veniva detto che avremmo perso il lavoro o che ci sarebbe stato negato l'accesso a vari aspetti della società se avessimo rifiutato il vaccino. Bambini sani venivano esclusi dagli spazi pubblici perché i loro genitori non volevano somministrare loro un farmaco sperimentale. Le famiglie si trovavano di fronte a scelte impossibili sotto un'immensa pressione sociale ed economica, in palese violazione del Codice di Norimberga che impone che tutti gli interventi medici fossero volontari e liberi da coercizioni.

L’erosione dei diritti e della fiducia

La violazione di questi due principi fondamentali ha creato un ambiente di coercizione e disinformazione. Le persone non sono state solo costrette a sottoporsi a interventi medici; sono state costrette al silenzio. Ogni tentativo di mettere in discussione la narrazione ufficiale o di chiedere maggiori informazioni è stato accolto con censura ed esclusione. Questa erosione dei diritti ha avuto conseguenze di vasta portata.

1. Mancanza di consenso informato: senza la piena trasparenza sugli ingredienti del vaccino e sui potenziali rischi a lungo termine, un vero consenso informato era impossibile. Le persone venivano invitate a prendere decisioni che avrebbero cambiato la loro vita senza informazioni cruciali.


2. Soppressione del dibattito: la censura dei punti di vista alternativi ha impedito la possibilità di un consenso informato. Senza un dibattito aperto e l'accesso a diverse prospettive, come si può affermare che le persone abbiano fatto una scelta veramente informata?


3. Violazione dell'autonomia fisica: gli operatori sanitari in prima linea, un tempo considerati eroi, venivano licenziati quando sceglievano di non rispettare le disposizioni. Molti avevano già un'immunità naturale da precedenti infezioni, eppure le loro decisioni mediche personali non venivano rispettate.


4. Politica sanitaria pubblica illogica: è diventato chiaro che i vaccini non bloccavano la trasmissione del Covid-19, che era la giustificazione centrale per i provvedimenti obbligatori. Se i vaccini non fossero riusciti a prevenire la diffusione, la vaccinazione sarebbe diventata una decisione personale in materia di salute, proprio come decidere cosa mangiare o bere. Eppure le persone erano comunque costrette a rispettarla nonostante gravi minacce.


5. Impatto personale: gli obblighi hanno cambiato l'intero corso della mia vita e di quella di molti altri. Le relazioni si sono logorate, le situazioni lavorative sono state compromesse e le traiettorie geografiche si sono spostate, mentre le persone cercavano ambienti in linea con i propri valori.

Una crisi dei diritti umani e della fiducia istituzionale

L'assenza di un riconoscimento pubblico di queste violazioni è impressionante. Come abbiamo potuto sopravvivere a un disprezzo così palese per i diritti umani senza alcun riconoscimento o assunzione di responsabilità? Il Primo emendamento è stato sancito per proteggere la libertà di parola e il Codice di Norimberga è stato creato per prevenire questo tipo di abusi; eppure entrambe queste tutele fondamentali sono state violate su larga scala.

Questa combinazione – la perdita della libertà di parola e l'abbandono del consenso informato – ha creato una crisi di fiducia che potrebbe richiedere generazioni per essere sanata. Come possiamo fidarci dei governi, dei media generalisti, o persino delle istituzioni mediche quando nascondono le informazioni e ci costringono ad obbedire senza fornire tutti i fatti?

Le lezioni dimenticate della storia

Ciò che forse è più sorprendente è quanto poche persone sembrassero conoscere appieno le implicazioni del Primo emendamento o fossero addirittura a conoscenza dell'esistenza del Codice di Norimberga. Come siamo arrivati ​​a questo punto? Forse perché gli anziani che hanno vissuto le conseguenze della Seconda guerra mondiale – coloro che hanno compreso le lezioni della storia – sono scomparsi. Gli echi delle tragedie storiche erano fin troppo inquietanti: le stesse tattiche di disinformazione, paura ed ingerenza governativa hanno manipolato il sentimento pubblico, trasformando l'empatia in paura.

Nel corso della storia, quando l'umanità ha affrontato i suoi momenti più bui, siamo emersi con nuova saggezza e nuove garanzie. La Rivoluzione americana ha dato vita alla Costituzione e alla sua Carta dei diritti. Le atrocità della Seconda guerra mondiale hanno portato al Codice di Norimberga e alla Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo. Questi documenti rappresentano i migliori sforzi dell'umanità per imparare dai nostri errori e prevenire futuri abusi. Ora, dopo aver violato questi sacri principi, ci troviamo a un altro momento cruciale. È tempo di riflettere sulle nostre azioni, riconoscere i nostri passi falsi e forgiare nuove tutele per il futuro.

I pericoli del silenzio

Senza una presa di coscienza pubblica, ci stiamo muovendo su un terreno pericoloso. Se non c'è il riconoscimento di queste violazioni, se non c'è una riflessione collettiva, allora diamo il via libera a questo fenomeno. La mancanza di responsabilità invia un messaggio chiaro: non esiste limite che non possa essere oltrepassato, nessun principio che non possa essere ignorato e nessun abuso di potere che non sarà tollerato.

Mentre andiamo avanti, è fondamentale ricordare questo capitolo della nostra storia, non per soffermarci sul passato, ma per garantire che non ripeteremo mai più questi errori. Dobbiamo riaffermare il nostro impegno per i diritti umani, il consenso informato e la libertà di parola. Solo riconoscendo quanto accaduto e chiedendo conto ai responsabili possiamo sperare di costruire un futuro in cui tali violazioni siano impensabili.

Una strada da percorrere: proteggere i nostri diritti fondamentali

Mentre emergiamo dall'ombra degli obblighi di vaccinazione contro il Covid-19, ci troviamo in una fase cruciale. Gli eventi degli ultimi anni hanno rivelato la fragilità delle nostre libertà più care e la facilità con cui i principi sanciti dal Primo emendamento e dal Codice di Norimberga possono essere erosi. Tuttavia questo periodo difficile ha anche risvegliato una rinnovata consapevolezza di questi diritti fondamentali. Ora dobbiamo incanalare questa consapevolezza in azione, lavorando instancabilmente per prevenire future violazioni e sanare le profonde ferite inflitte alla nostra società.

Il nostro percorso futuro inizia con il rendere il nostro governo responsabile. Dobbiamo sostenere la creazione di una commissione bipartisan per indagare sulla gestione della pandemia, concentrandosi in particolare sulle potenziali violazioni della libertà di parola e del consenso informato. Questa commissione non dovrebbe fungere da caccia alle streghe, ma da mezzo per comprendere i nostri passi falsi e garantire che non si ripetano mai più. Allo stesso tempo dobbiamo promuovere una legislazione che rafforzi la tutela di informatori e dissidenti, soprattutto in tempi di crisi. La nostra democrazia prospera grazie al libero scambio di idee e dobbiamo garantire che punti di vista diversi possano sempre essere espressi in modo sicuro, anche di fronte a una pressione schiacciante a conformarsi.

È necessario rafforzare le tutele legali e politiche per proteggere i nostri diritti nelle crisi future. Dovremmo sostenere gli sforzi legali che sfidano e chiariscono i limiti del potere governativo durante le emergenze di salute pubblica. Inoltre dobbiamo sostenere una legislazione che richieda esplicitamente che tutte le misure di salute pubblica aderiscano ai principi del Codice di Norimberga, in particolare per quanto riguarda il consenso informato. Integrando i comitati etici a tutti i livelli di governo, possiamo contribuire a garantire che il processo decisionale sia in linea con i diritti umani, anche nelle circostanze più difficili.

L'istruzione svolge un ruolo cruciale nella salvaguardia delle nostre libertà. Dobbiamo promuovere l'inclusione di un'educazione civica completa nei programmi scolastici, con particolare attenzione al Primo emendamento e all'etica medica. Promuovendo una profonda comprensione di questi principi nella prossima generazione, creiamo una popolazione meglio equipaggiata per riconoscere e contrastare le violazioni delle proprie libertà. Campagne di sensibilizzazione pubblica sull'importanza della libertà di parola e del consenso informato per il mantenimento di una società libera dovrebbero essere sostenute e amplificate.

Forse il compito più impegnativo, ma vitale, che ci attende è quello di risanare le relazioni personali messe a dura prova dagli eventi degli ultimi anni. Per colmare le divisioni create durante questo periodo difficile, dobbiamo affrontare le nostre relazioni frammentate con compassione e chiarezza. Avviare discussioni calme e razionali con familiari o amici da cui ci si è allontanati può creare uno spazio per un dialogo aperto. Praticando l'ascolto attivo ed esprimendo empatia, possiamo sforzarci di comprendere le paure e le motivazioni alla base delle decisioni altrui, anche se non siamo d'accordo con loro. Cercare un terreno comune in valori ed esperienze condivise, stabilendo al contempo dei limiti per le interazioni future, può impedire di riaprire vecchie ferite.

Rinnoviamo il nostro impegno ai principi

Mentre lavoriamo per una riconciliazione, dovremmo considerare la via del perdono, riconoscendo che molti hanno agito per paura o confusione. Tuttavia, nel perdonare, non dobbiamo dimenticare. Mantenere una memoria nitida degli eventi accaduti servirà da guida per prevenire future violazioni dei nostri diritti e delle nostre libertà.

Il nostro percorso futuro richiede più di una semplice riflessione; richiede un processo di riconciliazione e un fermo impegno nei confronti dei nostri principi fondamentali. Solo attraverso un'incrollabile dedizione alla libertà di parola, al consenso informato e all'autonomia individuale possiamo sperare di ricostruire la fiducia che si è incrinata. La posta in gioco non potrebbe essere più alta: le nostre azioni oggi, incluso il modo in cui ci riconciliamo con questo difficile capitolo della nostra storia, determineranno se lasceremo in eredità alle generazioni future una società che custodisce la libertà o una che ignora con superficialità le libertà conquistate a fatica.

Mentre andiamo avanti, portiamo con noi questa consapevolezza, rimanendo sempre vigili nella difesa dei nostri diritti e offrendo compassione a chi ci circonda. Il nostro impegno verso questi principi, unito ai nostri sforzi per guarire le nostre comunità, plasmerà la società che lasceremo alle generazioni future: una società che valorizza sia la libertà individuale che il benessere collettivo, promuovendo un equilibrio che rispetti la dignità e i diritti di ogni persona.

La scelta è nostra ed è il momento di agire. Attraverso azioni ponderate, sforzi sinceri per comprenderci e riconnetterci gli uni con gli altri, e un impegno incrollabile per i nostri diritti fondamentali, possiamo uscire da questo periodo difficile con le nostre libertà rafforzate e le nostre comunità rinnovate. Facciamo in modo che questa sia la nostra eredità: una società che ha imparato dai propri passi falsi, ha sanato le proprie divisioni e si è nuovamente impegnata nei principi eterni di libertà e dignità umana. Così facendo, onoriamo la saggezza di coloro che ci hanno preceduto, creando garanzie dopo periodi di grande conflitto, e diamo un potente esempio da seguire alle generazioni future.

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

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

What is the biggest problem within Catholic marriages today? According to a traditional priest, it’s “effeminate” men.

By effeminate, he doesn’t mean a man who’s light in his loafers. He means a man who doesn’t spiritually lead his family, and so fails in his most important role.

Especially among traditional Catholics, much attention regarding marriage is given to the problems of feminism and wives’ call to submission. LifeSiteNews asked Father Adam Purdy, FSSPX, to what extent he sees feminism as a marital problem, versus the problem of overbearing husbands.

While he did not entirely dismiss either of these as real issues, he maintained that he sees much more often a “different problem” – that of men who are “weak,” “not virtuous,” and who don’t practice the virtue of religion, which is “the most important virtue for a husband and a father to have,” Purdy told LifeSiteNews.

This is the very crux of the marriage – because as the spiritual head of his family, it is the husband who is called to take the lead in his family’s practice of the faith.

What does exercizing the virtue of religion in the home look like for the husband (and father)? According to Purdy, setting a schedule in which “prayer and religion takes priority in the house” and leading his family in prayer are two major pillars of his spiritual headship.

“How often do we have situations where dad doesn’t pray with the family? Mom’s in charge of the rosary or mom’s in charge of morning prayers,” said Purdy, acknowledging that sometimes it may be necessary for mom to lead prayer when dad has to go out to work early, for example.

Fathers also don’t often ensure that prayer and religion are prioritized to begin with. “How many families don’t actually have a schedule? The only thing they have is dinner time, between five and six, and that’s it. Many families don’t say a family rosary,” Purdy noted.

It is critical that husbands make sure the family follows a rule of life, almost like that of a religious community, said Purdy. “There has to be a rule in the house, and most don’t have it. That’s the problem of the man.”

“How many families have silence? How many families have community prayer? How many families do reading? There are so many things that could be imitated from a monastery. But we’re listening to Mick Jagger on the way to school in the car. We’ve got the TV on at home all hours of the day,” observed Purdy.

He explained that fathers should take time out for activities that will help build the devotion of their family, the way a priest makes time for community activities like processions and picnics and formation talks, to foster the devotion of his flock.

More typically, religion ends up taking “a backseat to other things,” and this has bigger consequences than men realize, both for their own family and for society.

Most fundamentally, God is the true, deep, and lasting motivation to live a good – that is, virtuous – life. “How do you convince your children to be good if God isn’t the reason?” noted Fr. Purdy.

In addition, while God should take first place for His own sake, when He doesn’t come first, the result is a de facto disorder of priorities, in which other concerns become blown out of proportion and even secondary priorities may take a backseat to other interests, since religion directs and orders everything else.

Even more consequentially, the lack of proper order in a family does a disservice to society, because “the family is the building block of society,” and “You can’t build up society if you don’t have God first,” noted Purdy.

He pointed out that these men who have abdicated their spiritual headship are a product of our culture, which itself has “become effeminate” and “produces vice rather than virtue.”

Men’s neglect of their religious responsibility, then, also “merits eventually the scorn of the woman,” as well as her attempt to take over the religious leadership of the children “in spite of him,” which Purdy affirmed a woman must do if her husband is failing in that regard.

The prior also talked about what the husband’s proper approach to his wife should look like, and touched on disordered attitudes about this that can be found in traditional communities.

“There is a lot of abuse of the idea of the authority of the husband,” said Fr. Purdy, noting that such abuses include the ideas that “The woman is my servant; the woman doesn’t speak; the woman does all the work; the woman has to just do what I say.”

He cited an example he has seen of a husband who looks at his wife as “more as a servant rather than a helpmate,” and “more as one to be told what to do rather than to mutually enhance each other.”

For a proper model of leadership, the husband should look to Jesus Christ, since as St. Paul said in a letter to the Ephesians, the husband is called to love his wife as Christ loved His Church.

“He laid out His life for His Church. He has compassion and mercy for His Church. He gives us all the means to do good and to succeed and to grow stronger in everything spiritually. He’s the lifeblood of his Church. The husband in a way has to be that,” Purdy told LifeSiteNews.

And, in fact, Christ exemplified servant-leadership, with an attitude not that He is above certain tasks, but that says, “I’m going to be there with you. I’m going to be doing the same work that you’re doing. I’m also going to be getting my hands dirty.”

“That’s our Lord. A father has to be the same,” said Purdy. In so doing, he should seek to “alleviate some of the burden of his wife,” and not refuse certain household tasks because they are the woman’s domain.

“A lot of marriages don’t work because the man, when he comes home from work, he doesn’t realize” the burden of his wife, who has “been with five kids for 10 hours and is about ready to cry and pull her hair out at the same time.”

Purdy told LifeSiteNews how his father instilled in him and his siblings the attitude that one should seek to please one’s wife, by, for example, cleaning the house well together while his mom was away from home.

“How many guys are like that today? Not a lot,” Purdy noted.

A husband also demonstrates his love of his wife through simply giving her his time and attention. “I think that a woman thrives on recognition and acknowledgement and gratitude and honor and respect… every woman would like to know that she’s appreciated, that she’s loved. That her husband looks to spend time with her. And you see men that just don’t do that very well. They will come home and turn on a TV, and don’t even pay attention to their kids. It’s a failure, big time,” said Purdy.

This will foster his wife’s own love and support for her husband. She should seek to build him up, and never berate or belittle him which, according to Purdy, is the “worst thing a woman can do in an argument with her husband.” A wife is called most especially to practice the virtue of charity in her marriage, with both her husband and children, Father noted.

While it does not excuse the sins or faults of a wife, ultimately, the authority of the husband means that in a sense, the marriage starts with him.

“I put the burden of success in a marriage on the shoulders of the man, because he’s supposed to be the mind,” said Purdy. “He’s supposed to be able to calculate what it is that I can deliver to my spouse so that she will be the most. She will be in her glory. And if he does that, she does go into her glory. But when she’s in her glory, she turns it back to him. It’s like – for lack of a better word – a give and take.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Catholic Priest Says ‘Effeminate’ Men Are the Root Problem in Marriages appeared first on LewRockwell.

The United Nations and its “human rights” bureaucracy are unhappy with American education — especially President Trump’s policies and proposals.

Instead of local or parental control, the UN is pushing for radical changes: more federal power, less educational choice, government oversight of private schools, and the promotion of controversial ideological content — all at taxpayer expense. It also wants education globally redefined as a UN-backed “human right.”

UN Investigates U.S.

The UN’s latest attack on U.S. education, parental rights, state and national sovereignty, and the Constitution came in the form of an investigation and “country report” to the UN’s dictator-dominated “Human Rights Council.” The outfit, which regularly praises mass-murdering regimes while condemning Western nations, frequently targets the God-given rights of Americans enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Among other demands on education, the United States needs more federal involvement in and oversight of government and private schools, not less, argued the senior UN official in her report last month following an in-depth investigation of U.S. education policy.

Blasting Trump’s efforts to shut down or at least reduce the power of the U.S. Department of Education, the UN bureaucrat claimed they would hurt low-income students, weaken “civil rights,” disrupt “higher learning,” and produce other alleged horrors.

“The loss of federal oversight could deepen inequities, harm marginalized students and undermine social mobility,” argued UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Farida Shaheed, the radical Pakistani activist who investigated the United States.

The final report does acknowledge that under the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, education is not a federal responsibility. However, it frames that as a problem. And it then proceeds to claim that the U.S. government is obligated under “international law” to impose the UN’s agenda on education nationwide anyway.

Perversion, Leftism & Racial Obsession Needed

Aside from blasting what remains of local control and decentralized policymaking on education across America, the UN special rapporteur also called for more ideologically driven mandates. The goal: Make sure children learn what the UN thinks they must learn.

States including Florida and Texas were singled out for passing laws trying to protect students — especially young students — from indoctrination with Marxist-inspired critical race theory; LGBT propaganda; diversity, equity, and inclusion; gender ideology; and sexually explicit material.

Shaheed claimed the laws produce a “chilling effect” undermining “inclusive education” — a euphemism for grotesque “sex education,” racial collectivism, and gender propaganda.

“Censorship laws restricting classroom discussions on race, gender identity and other ‘divisive concepts’ limit students’ access to critical knowledge,” she claimed, blasting state efforts to protect children from racial, sex, and gender indoctrination as “censorship.”

State and district policies keeping porn and other obscene material out of tax-funded schools are supposedly hurting children, too. “Book bans and content restrictions silence marginalized voices, preventing students from accessing a full and accurate understanding of history and social dynamics,” claimed the radical UN activist.

The Broader Push

It is all part of the broader UN push to standardize education globally. As outlined in UN agreements going back decades, one of its primary goals is to shift the attitudes and values of children toward UN-approved beliefs.

In an interview she did last year with the UN’s education agency, Shaheed brazenly called for governments to control what is taught. There is a need for governments to ensure “that standards are outlined that all private sector providers must adhere to in accordance with the right to quality education.”

Ultimately, education must teach children to become so-called sustainable global citizens, UN leaders and agreements have been saying openly since at least the 1990s. Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) both state that clearly.

The UN Human Rights Council has long advocated for hijacking control over private schools, too. In fact, a decade ago, the dictator-controlled outfit claimed governments have an obligation to monitor and regulate all non-government education, even imposing government standards on all.

Tax-funded Universities & “Freedom”

The supposedly secular Pakistani activist-turned-UN “expert,” whose last name means martyr who dies for Allah or Islam, also slammed government efforts to rein in college campuses’ violent “pro-Palestine” riots funded by billionaire extremist George Soros and other insiders. Among other concerns, she denounced “disproportionate disciplinary actions.”

When it came to the escalating attacks against Jews, Shaheed claimed not to see it. “I do not know antisemitism is actually on the rise,” she responded when asked if she would be investigating one of the major issues that caused Trump to take on Harvard, Columbia, and other once-prestigious universities.

She expressed deep concerns over Trump’s efforts to protect taxpayers and students from rogue universities feasting on public money, too. Under the guise of “respecting institutional autonomy,” the UN rapporteur claimed the U.S. government is obligated to do what she said.

“While the Harvard case has drawn global attention, it is emblematic of a much broader pattern of coercive assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy: from book and subject bans in schools to discriminatory censorship laws and punitive measures against universities, their students and faculty,” Shaheed said.

Blasting what she described as “criminalization” of student protests, Shaheed suggested that international legal mechanisms are required to override American policies developed by Americans. “The Special Rapporteur … has consistently expressed her serious concerns in allegation letters sent to the Government of the United States,” the report says.

Redefining Education as a Globalist “Human Right”

Among the most alarming demands by the UN rapporteur: a redefinition of education itself to bring American schools into line with the UN’s vision on “human rights” and “equity.” Those two loaded terms mean something very different to the UN than the traditional understanding held by Americans, of course.

“The Special Rapporteur strongly encourages the federal Government and all States to consider expressly recognizing education as a fundamental human right for everyone,” Shaheed said.

By contrast, consider the definition of education in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, the first American dictionary. “To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties,” it says. (Emphasis added.)

For virtually all of human history, education of children has been a responsibility of parents. But under the UN’s agenda, indoctrination pretending to be education becomes a human right enforced at the barrel of a government gun.

“The right to education requires States [governments] to deliver free, quality, public education for everyone,” the UN’s final report declared (emphasis added). That is clearly an ominous call for forcing all children into federalized government “education” based on UN principles while marginalizing alternatives to government-controlled schools.

Incompatible Views

As stated above, the UN’s view of “quality education” would differ significantly from the views of everyday Americans. As the UN’s own agreements make clear, it believes children should learn globalism, environmentalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and even UN-approved “spirituality.”

Perhaps even more significant is the total incompatibility of the UN’s understanding of “human rights” with the traditional American and Christian understanding of God-given rights from the Creator. Under the biblical understanding and the American system of government, unalienable rights pre-exist government. Indeed, governments exist to protect those rights, not grant them.

Under the UN’s bizarre version of “human rights,” however, rights are granted by governments and can be restricted or abolished at will. Adding insult to injury, those fake government-imposed “rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations,” according to Article 29 of the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

In other words, the UN’s supposed human rights are the revocable, government-granted privileges of people to take from their neighbors by force, instead of the unalienable God-given rights protected by the Constitution.

Obviously, the two views on human rights are not just different — they are fundamentally incompatible with each other at a basic level. The fact that some of the world’s most brutal communist and Islamist dictatorships sit proudly on the UN Human Rights Council exemplifies the conflict well.

More Globalism Needed

The implications of this redefinition of education as a UN-granted human right are enormous. Consider Article 26 of the controversial UN “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the organization’s foundational “human rights” document. It states clearly that education must be “compulsory” and that it “shall further the activities of the United Nations.”

In short, if parents, private schools, tutors, and even government schools are not promoting the UN’s agenda in “education,” they are depriving children of their “human rights” enshrined in UN agreements. Depriving children of their UN-defined human rights is considered to be a serious offense.

The UN rapporteur has been very explicit on the issue of indoctrinating children with UN-backed ideologies. “There is a growing understanding of the need to embed sustainable development values … in educational processes, and efforts are being made to incorporate sustainable development principles into educational curricula to prepare students for the challenges of the future,” she said in a Q&A with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) last year.

Read the Whole Article

The post UN Slams Trump on Education, Demands Globalized Control appeared first on LewRockwell.

Who knows what to believe these days? Well, what would you expect after years, even decades, of anti-reality operations by everyone from the CIA to The New York Times to Harvard U. Is it any wonder that reality-optionality is making the people both apathetic and insane?

We are told now by the FBI that there is no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein ran a blackmail operation against the politicos of Western Civ, or that a “client list” existed, or that JE was murdered in his jail cell. It well might be true that there is no evidence, strictly speaking.

Messrs. Patel and Bongino, coming into office rather late in the Epstein game, were apparently left with big bag of nuthin. What else can they truthfully report? So, they had to put it out there, knowing a whole lot of people would be miffed. “We’ve got nuthin, sorry.” Were they chagrined to do that? Evidently so. Of course, this Epstein business has been going on for years and years and it is certainly possible that the most damning evidence has been destroyed by interested parties.

Personally, I find it implausible that absolutely nothing ever leaked, no video of, say, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton violating a child, if it ever happened. Everything else in our world leaks, eventually. And there were supposedly how many cameras around the Epstein properties, and how many thousands of hours of video recordings? There is more video of Bigfoot than of compromised Epstein bigshots. Just sayin’.

AG Pam Bondi, the FBIs boss, also has some ‘splainin’ to do. In February, she claimed to have the Epstein client list “sitting on my desk right now to review,” and hinted it would be released shortly. That material, when released, turned out to be the old dog-eared flight logs that have been circulating through every news outlet for years. Did she not know the difference between an alleged “client list” and the old flight logs? Let’s face it: seems kind of dumb. . . seems like the AG got played. . . and now the mob on “X” is having sport with her.

Among the miffed, apparently, is Elon Musk. At the height of his feud with Mr. Trump, on June 5, Elon put out a message on his “X” platform saying, “@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!”. This intemperate utterance naturally prompts you to wonder: how (or what) might Elon know about any supposed Epstein evidence? At this point, the FBI might send somebody to inquire. Did Elon, who has more money than even Scrooge McDuck, somehow manage to buy up all those alleged blackmail tapes? Does he otherwise know where they might have disappeared to? Has he ever seen anything? Anyway, he didn’t produce any actual evidence.

Is Elon losing it, a little bit. His grip, that is. Mr. Trump thinks so. He declared over the weekend that Elon has “gone off the rails” . . . has become “a train wreck.” Well, what you can see in this very public, very regrettable cage-match between two giant public personalities is that Elon has lost his cool and the president has not.

For one thing, Elon is apparently incensed over the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) just signed into law because it ends the electric vehicle mandate left over from the “Joe Biden” regime, as well as the whopping $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric cars — loss of which which is apt to break Tesla’s business model. The bill also calls for sunsetting subsidies for battery production by 2028, meaning Tesla’s Powerwall business is likewise affected. Mr. Trump took pains to explain that he’d informed Elon from the get-go (and repeatedly) that all those subsidies were done for when he got elected.

Elon was visibly perturbed over the process that produced the OBBB, the proverbial political sausage-making (i.e., a nasty business you’d be appalled to watch). It appeared, he said, to un-do all of his DOGE spending cuts so laboriously made. Mainly, Elon deplored the failure to address the $36-trillion-plus national debt, widely recognized as a time-bomb on a short fuse liable to sink the whole USS United States. I will tell you a harsh truth: nobody will do anything about the national debt. The sheer math of our annual debt service is simply impossible. Our country is heading into some sort of bankruptcy proceeding, some kind of ferocious “work out” — as they say in the banking board-rooms.

Mr. Trump is betting that re-industrialization of the USA will produce enough of the right sort of growth — that is, production of real things of real value, as opposed to mere financial shenanigans — that the debt reckoning can be overcome somehow. Or mitigated. It’s a bold risk, and many pieces of the scheme are indeed falling into place: tariffs, bigly investment capital from foreigners, a general realignment of trade relations, tax reform, downsizing of government.

But a virulent opposition, the mad-dog remnants of the Democratic Party, seeks to wreck Mr. Trump’s program (and perhaps the USA altogether), and it is a miracle that the president has gotten this far with his plan. Personally, I’m doubtful that the energy resources will be there to underwrite this reindustrialization, but that is a topic for another day.

And now Elon, peeved as he is, proposes to bring another big obstacle onto the scene, his proposed new “American Party.” Looks like he is making a tactical blunder, and his distraught emotional demeanor suggests poor decision-making. Frankly, I’ve been concerned about Elon’s soundness-of-mind since he came on-board Mr. Trump’s band-wagon last summer. There was something peculiar about his spastic rompings on stage, his jerky movements, his garbly speeches. You wonder if all the talk about his world-beating “genius” has messed with his mind.

Also, frankly, I’ve long thought that attempting to colonize Mars was absurd, or at least premature. Shouldn’t we rather make an effort to demonstrate that we can live on this planet successfully before we venture off to a new one? After all, this Earth is perfectly suited to our needs and Mars is absolutely not. I doubt that even the most extreme transhuman program would avail to implant us up there.

To cut to the chase: the grandiosity of Elon’s plans, and the oddness of his public performances, suggests to me that he has gone a bit crazy in the pure sense of the word. This new party he proposes looks like a crazy play by a crazy person. He can throw zillions of dollars into it, and create a whole lot of political mischief, but what would that prove? How would that make him any better than such obvious villains as George Soros and Bill Gates?

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post Cage Match appeared first on LewRockwell.

A few weeks ago I urged President Trump to make a deal with Iran that would satisfy his stated goal of no nuclear weapons production and would allow Iran to continue its lawful pursuit of civilian nuclear energy. The deal on the table, as described by the Iranian foreign minister himself, was a win-win “update” of Obama’s JCPOA “nuclear deal” that he could have avoided a costly and counter-productive war with Iran.

Unfortunately, the negotiations were cut short by an Israeli sneak-attack on Iran that led to a 12-day war that did not turn out as Israel imagined. This often happens in war, especially wars of aggression. After a day or so, Israel found itself overwhelmed by an Iran that proved to be more than capable of defending itself and Netanyahu called up Uncle Sam begging for assistance.

The resulting US bombing run on Iran’s nuclear sites did not lead to the end of that country’s capabilities, but to the expulsion of the UN monitoring organization and the emergence of Iranian “strategic ambiguity” regarding its program. In short, the bombing has blinded the world to what Iran may do in the future. That is not a win for Trump.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, the Iranian president confirmed what most people understood at the time: President Trump promised Iran that while they were engaged in negotiations the United States would not allow Israel to attack the country. With the sixth round of negotiations just two days away, however, Israel thumbed its nose at the United States and launched an attack on Iran anyway.

Considering that Israel’s “military capabilities” are almost entirely provided by the United States, this betrayal of its benefactor will surely go down as one of the most brazen acts of ingratitude of all time.

This week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington DC for the third time in Trump’s short second term in office. While we do not know what President Trump is telling him this time around, this might be the time to finally give Israel some “tough love” that many parents practice with their teenagers.

Donald Trump may be the most “pro-Israel” president we’ve ever had, but if he really wanted to help Israel he would make clear to Netanyahu that US support does Israel no favors. Continuing to spend tens of billions of dollars a year financing Israel’s war machine and backing up Israel’s attacks on its neighbors has not produced peace or security – much less prosperity – for Israel.

In fact, as soon as Israel attacked Iran so many Israelis tried to leave the country that Tel Aviv forbade its own citizens from leaving the country. Israelis are desperate to escape the wars of their own government’s making.

If President Trump really wanted to help Israel he would inform Netanyahu this week that not another US dollar would be sent to prop up his government. Not another missile or bomb would be sent. Not another American bullet would be available for Israeli soldiers to attack their neighbors or to shoot Palestinian civilians.

If Israel had to face the hard reality that it must learn to live with its neighbors instead of attacking them, the country may actually start seeing some peace and prosperity. Whatever the case, it is not our responsibility to finance the war machine of any foreign country. Time to put America first.

The post What Trump Should Tell Netanyahu appeared first on LewRockwell.

Elon is upset with Trump and has decided to form his own party, the America Party. Trump responded the other day by suggesting it might be time to look into Elon’s rent-seeking over the years.

Just desserts couldn’t be sweeter.

Musk has made billions off the government. More finely, off of government spending and now he has the audacity to complain about government spending, a la the Big Beautiful Bill just passed by Congress. Perhaps because it does not contain enough spending that will benefit him. He certainly never complained about such spending before.

How much has the government spent on Space X? Whether one thinks it is worth spending money on rockets and such is not the issue. The issue is whether it is proper to spend other people’s money on it. More finely, whether it is morally justifiable to rob millions of Americans of their money in order to “fund” (note the bland terminology government uses that an honest mugger would never have the audacity to use) some project that puts billions into the pockets of a privately owned, for-profit company such as Space X. Musk is a billionaire and – supposedly a whiz at business. Well then, why doesn’t Musk use his own money to launch his rockets? Instead of using the government to force millions of Americans to “fund” his operations, why doesn’t he persuade investors to back them? If they are worth backing, why wouldn’t they?

Legitimate businesses do not need to rent-seek because they don’t have to.

This can be expressed another way. Illegitimate businesses rent-seek because they have to. Because if they didn’t rent-seek, they’d be out of business.

Tesla comes to mind. Elon built his business using government to extract rent from legitimate businesses, most especially the established car companies. They were effectively forced to buy what are styled “carbon credits” from Tesla because it was either do that or manufacture “zero emissions” electric vehicles that they knew they could not sell except at a loss. It cost them less to buy “credits” from Tesla, which the government counted in their favor, insofar as complying with the regulations that effectively required them to either manufacture “zero emissions” EVs themselves or get (that is, buy) “credit” for handing money over to Tesla for manufacturing them.

A lot of spending there, all of it forced by the government for the benefit of Tesla (and so, Elon Musk).

Tesla built its business in the same way that the larvae of a certain wasp feeds on the paralyzed but still living body of the “donor” insect that the parent wasp stung before laying its egg on the victim. The legitimate vehicle manufacturers – whose legitimacy derives from the fact that they sold what people wanted at a price that earned an honest profit – were thus forced to finance Tesla and the EV force-feeding generally.

Further feeding came in the form of tax kickbacks that greatly advantaged Tesla for many years because for many years, Tesla was the only major manufacturer of EVs. The government dangled tax kickbacks up to $7,500 to induce people to buy EVs and – for many years – that essentially meant Tesla EVs. Now, there is nothing evil about returning a portion of the money stolen from what are styled “taxpayers” (once again, note the deliberately bland terminology; as if paying taxes were like paying rent; i.e., as if it were a voluntary transaction). That is not the issue. The issue is that only some taxpayers got some of their money back – but only if they bought an EV, which for many years meant they bought a Tesla.

Read the Whole Article

The post Elon’s Party appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Scott Horton: Coups, WMDs, & CIA – A Deep Dive Into What Led to the US/Israeli War With Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Those who have claimed that there is no smoking-gun evidence in the CIA’s long-secret records relating to the JFK assassination can no longer make that claim. That’s because the CIA was just forced to release its records relating to CIA official George Joannides. For more than 60 years, the CIA, with the help of deferential U.S. federal courts, had succeeded in keeping its Joannides files secret. Until now.

No, I’m not referring to some videotaped confession by former CIA head Allen Dulles or any other CIA official confessing to having participated in the orchestration and carrying out of the assassination or the resulting cover-up. As I have long maintained, there is no reasonable possibility whatsoever that anyone within the national-security state would put something directly incriminatory into writing. That would be dumb, and one thing is certain — CIA officials back in the 1960s were not dumb. In fact, they were brilliant people and very good at engaging in their expertise of state-sponsored assassinations, cover-ups, and regime change.

What I’m instead referring to is circumstantial evidence, which, as every judge in the land will instruct juries, is just as valid and credible as direct evidence. It is circumstantial evidence, such as the fraudulent autopsy that the U.S. military establishment carried out on President Kennedy’s body, or the fraudulent copy of the Zapruder film that the CIA produced on the weekend of the assassination, that have convicted the national-security state of the Kennedy murder. (See my books The Kennedy Autopsy and An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story.)

Thanks to the release of the Joannides files, we now have more smoking-gun circumstantial evidence to add on top of the circumstantial evidence establishing the fraudulent autopsy and the fraudulent film.

The release of the Joannides records was reported this past Friday on Axios in an article entitled “CIA Admits Shadowy Officer Monitored Oswald Before JFK Assassination, New Records Reveal” by Marc Cavuto. It’s worth taking a pause in reading my article and going over to read Cavuto’s article to get an overall context of these particular long-secret records that have just been released.

It’s first necessary to put things into the overall context of the assassination plot. As I set forth in my books An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story and Regime Change: The JFK Assassination, central to the plot was the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the crime. That’s what Oswald meant when he stated that he was “a patsy.”

As the years and decades passed, it became increasingly clear that Oswald, who served in the U.S. Marines, was recruited to be an operative for U.S. intelligence, one who was trained to work under the cover of being a communist. That would explain why Oswald was not subjected to arrest, torture, indictment, prosecution, or even just an interrogation after he ostensibly defected to the Soviet Union and then returned to the United States with a Russian wife.

In October 1962, President Kennedy settled the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which he promised that the U.S. would not invade Cuba. This was almost certainly the point at which the national-security establishment decided that Kennedy posed a grave threat to national security and needed to be removed from office, given the Pentagon’s and CIA’s conviction that the Cuban communist regime posed a grave threat to U.S. national security.

Six months later, in April 1963, Oswald moved to New Orleans, where he made a big public hullabaloo to establish that he was a “communist.” Notice something important: Oswald had lived in Dallas for five months before moving to New Orleans and had made no big public hullabaloo in Dallas about being a communist. On the contrary, he hung out with rightwing people who had direct or indirect ties to U.S. intelligence or to the U.S. military-industrial complex.

While in New Orleans, Oswald went to work for the Reily Coffee Company, which was owned by a fierce anti-communist conservative. What are the chances that a fierce anti-communist conservative would hire a died-in-the-wool communist at the height of the Cold War? No chance at all!

While in New Orleans, Oswald made contact with an organization of fierce anti-Castro Cuban exiles called the DRE. While passing out pamphlets promoting a national pro-Cuba organization called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which the CIA and FBI were trying to destroy, Oswald got into a big public altercation with the head of the DRE. The altercation had the appearance of being a staged event designed to publicize Oswald’s communist bona fides.

Oswald was arrested for disorderly conduct and put into jail . While incarcerated, he requested to speak to a FBI agent. The request was granted and the FBI agent came to visit him in jail. How many regular people are able to pull off something like that?

Later, Oswald and the head of the DRE appeared on a public radio broadcast that publicized Oswald’s trip to the Soviet Union and his ostensible commitment to communism.

Two months after Oswald moved to New Orleans, in June 1963, while Oswald was still in New Orleans, Kennedy delivered his famous Peace Speech at American University, which essentially was a declaration of war against the national-security branch of the federal government. In that speech, JFK effectively declared an end to the Cold War and an intent to move America in a totally different direction — one that was based on establishing peaceful and friendly relations with Russia, Cuba, and the communist world. That, of course, was anathema to the U.S. national security establishment. JFK’s Peace Speech undoubtedly solidified the decision to remove JFK from office.

Four months after JFK’s Peace Speech, in September 1963 Oswald went to Mexico City, where he engaged in a big public hullabaloo in which he made contact with the Soviet and Cuban embassies. For those who are still convinced that the Russians or Cubans employed Oswald to assassinate Kennedy, it’s worth asking: If that’s really true, would they really want to advertise their connection to the assassin in such a big way?

After Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, the DRE immediately put out a press release stating that the president had been killed by a communist and detailing Oswald’s communist bona fides. The information in the press release was spread across the nation in the mainstream press.

But there was one significant thing that people didn’t know: The DRE was being supervised and generously funded by the CIA, specifically by CIA official George Joannides. For all practical purposes, the DRE was one of the CIA’s infamous front organizations.

It was former Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley who discovered in the 1990s Joannides’s role with the DRE. Morley sought Joannides’s records from the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act. The CIA refused to comply with the act. Morley sued the CIA in federal court for the records. The CIA fiercely opposed the lawsuit for more ten years. Ultimately, the U.S. federal courts, not surprisingly, deferred to the CIA by letting the CIA keep its Joannides records secret. The entire saga of Morley’s fight against the CIA for the release of the Joannides records is set forth in FFF’s book Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation.

For decades, the CIA did its best to keep its role with the DRE secret. It also lied about Joannides’s role with the DRE to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

Oh, but it gets worse. During the HSCA investigation, the CIA called Joannides out of retirement to ostensibly serve as an innocent, good-faith liaison between committee investigators and the CIA. In reality, he served as an obstacle to the investigation of the CIA’s possible role in the JFK assassination.  Moreover, the CIA never revealed Joannides’ role in the DRE to the HSCA or, for that matter, to the ARRB.

It gets even worse. It turns out that the CIA awarded a medal to Joannides for his role with the DRE, his role as an obstacle with the HSCA, and for his lies and deception to official investigatory commissions.

So, what was going on here? Why did the CIA fight so fiercely for so long to cover all this up? Because the last thing the CIA wanted was for people to find out its role in setting up Oswald to take the fall for the assassination. Knowing the deeply seated Cold War fear of communists and communism that had been inculcated in the American people, the national-security state knew that the best thing it could ever do was to frame a “communist.” But obviously it would not be beneficial to the plot for people to know the role that the CIA had played in establishing the “communist” that was being framed.

With the fraudulent autopsy, the fraudulent Zapruder film, and now the incriminating Joannides files, the national-security establishment is guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt of the assassination of President Kennedy. There is no way around it, not even for the U.S. mainstream press, which, needless to say, continues hewing to the ludicrous lone-nut theory of the assassination.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Smoking-Gun Circumstantial Evidence in the JFK Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

On April 2 U.S. President Donald Trump declared a ‘Liberation Day’ by introducing tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States.

I adred to predict:

The ‘invisible hand’ of the markets will respond to Trump’s moves by showing him a very visible finger.

The following days confirmed my take.

The tariff rates Trump announced were basically picked from hot air. The whole idea behind them were based on the weird theories of Steve Miran, the Chairman of Trump’s President Council of Economic Advisors. They did not make sense.

By April 9 the markets hit back:

Treasury yields spiked on Wednesday as investors bailed out of what has been perceived as the world’s safest instrument on expectations of crumbling foreign demand as tariffs take effect.
…
Yields settled down after China called for dialogue with the U.S. on trade, and then moved right back near the highs of the day after China said it was increasing its tariffs on the U.S. to 84%.
…
“Something has broken tonight in the bond market. We are seeing a disorderly liquidation,” said Jim Bianco, president and macro strategist at Bianco Research.

Shortly thereafter Trump had to pull back (archived):

The economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused Mr. Trump to blink on Wednesday afternoon and pause his “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, according to four people with direct knowledge of the president’s decision.

Trump’s unsteadiness on tariffs increased the uncertainty of economic decisions. Uncertainty is a poison, suppressing real economic activities.

The Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis produces hundreds of economic statistics. It includes several which are measuring uncertainty:

bigger

That FRED graph only included February. The doubt about Trump’s economic policies had pushed it that high. The consequences of his tariff games were not yet visible.

Here is the current FRED overview graph of economic uncertainty. The index has reached a new record high:

bigger

When Trump had pulled back and announced his 90 days pause on tariffs, he and his advisors were hopeful that other countries would come to negotiate:

PETER NAVARRO:
…
So that’s what we set, knowing full well, knowing full well that a lot of countries would come right to us and want a bargain. We’ve got 90 deals in 90 days possibly pending here.

Up to today, two days before the 90 day pause on tariffs expires, no trade deal was done. There are three new ‘framework agreements’ – with the UK, Vietnam, and China – which are more or less just letter’s of intent but not agreements.

With the tariff pause ending, and no trade deals done, the Trump administration is forced to extend its tariff pause:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that the U.S. will revert to steep country-by-country tariff rates at the beginning of August, weeks after the tariff rate pause is set to expire.
…
CNN host Dana Bash responded to Bessent on Sunday, saying, “There’s basically a new deadline,” prompting Bessent to push back.

“It’s not a new deadline. We are saying this is when it’s happening,” Bessent said. “If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that’s your choice.”

On Friday, Trump, too, referred to an Aug. 1 deadline, raising questions about whether the July 9 deadline still stands.

The Trump administration is also moving the goalposts. Instead of negotiating trade agreements with individual countries the administration will just send out letters of, so far, unknown content:

Trump said Friday that the administration would start sending letters to countries, adding, “I think by the 9th they’ll be fully covered.”

“They’ll range in value from maybe 60% or 70% tariffs to 10% and 20% tariffs, but they’re going to be starting to go out sometime tomorrow,” Trump said overnight on Friday. “We’ve done the final form, and it’s basically going to explain what the countries are going to be paying in tariffs.”

Trump said in a Truth Social post late Sunday evening that tariff letters would be delivered starting at noon on Monday.

There is only one country who’s people will have to pay those tariffs and the is the U.S. itself.

There is little reason for other countries to react in any other way to the U.S. than by imposing symmetrical tariff measures. For many of them U.S. markets are no longer important enough. That is why most countries have simply ignored the matter:

Bessent also said Sunday that “many of these countries never even contacted us.”

The whole Trump strategy of imposing tariffs to regain industrial activity and to impose its political aims on other countries have failed. China and the EU, the U.S. biggest trade partners, have not flinched. Others have followed their example.

Meanwhile the damage imposed by heightened trade uncertainty continues to accumulate. People are already paying higher prices.

A year from now, when the 2026 midterm elections come up, the damage from tariffs will be what really matters.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump Caves Again Over Tariffs – Uncertainty Increases appeared first on LewRockwell.

Few (if any) people who served in the Kiev regime are as controversial as Oleksiy Arestovych (or Alexey Arestovich, depending on his rather unstable mood). He served as an advisor to the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky for around three years and became quite notorious due to his extremely inconsistent and rather “colorful” statements (euphemistically speaking). Arestovich is known (or should we say, infamous) for his highly charged rhetoric, ranging from outright deranged and extremist (such as his admiration for ISIS) to surprisingly realistic (such as the admission that the pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom sabotaged a peace deal in early 2022). The latter has become somewhat more prevalent in recent years, particularly after Arestovich left his position in the Kiev regime.

At some point, he even called Zelensky a delusional dictator (talk about an understatement), although this could be attributed to the neverending political power struggle in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Interestingly, while he’s seen as an extremist in Russia and is even prosecuted as such by the Russian legal system (for good reason, obviously), he’s also seen as a “traitor” by the Neo-Nazi junta, which has accused him of undermining “the constitutional order” and imposed sanctions on him as a result. Arestovich now resides in the United States, in what could be described as a “comfortable political exile”. However, what’s certainly “uncomfortable” are his statements (for the Kiev regime, obviously). Namely, he recently stated that Russia is using just 5% of its power and that “it could easily crush us, but chooses not to”.

Arestovich then went on to explain that the Kremlin is fighting on “easy mode” because it wants to “avoid overheating the Russian society”. He also stated that the idea of “a surprisingly strong Ukraine” comes from the fact that “Moscow is simply not fighting a real war, but a special military operation (SMO)”. Arestovich pointed out that the Russian military has only announced partial mobilization once and that its troops have regular rotation, unlike the Neo-Nazi junta forces, where soldiers are forced to fight for years. He also contrasted Russia’s “5% effort” with the Kiev regime’s use of 40% of its budget to wage the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, clearly implying that “Moscow isn’t even trying yet” and pointing out that “700,000 Russian soldiers are fighting a million Ukrainians” (and still advancing on all fronts).

Arestovich then explained that if the Kremlin wanted to, it could “easily mobilize two million troops, ramp up military spending to full wartime levels and erase Ukraine from the map in three months”. His exact words include a rather colorful analogy, as he stated that the Neo-Nazi junta would be “crushed like a rotten walnut”. Arestovich admitted that “it’s clear Russia doesn’t want to destroy Ukraine, because it still sees Ukrainians as brothers, misguided and misled, but still part of the same historical and cultural space”. And indeed, this is evident in President Vladimir Putin’s regular statements about the clearly Russian origins of the vast majority of Ukrainians and the inextricable historical, cultural, religious, linguistic and even simple genetic ties between Russia and Ukraine (now mostly occupied by NATO invaders).

Arestovich argues that “Russia could turn this into a real war, the kind that leaves nothing standing, but chooses to fight with restraint, using volunteers and contracted soldiers rather than throwing its full weight into the fight”.

He also thinks that the Kiev regime is still surviving because of a combination of the political West’s massive investment to prolong this NATO-orchestrated conflict and the Kremlin holding back, rather than its own strength, arguing that the aforementioned Russian restraint stems from the desire to avoid widespread destruction in NATO-occupied Ukraine.

Arestovich also mentioned the infamous TCC and its kidnapping of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of regular Ukrainians in order to fill the ranks of frontline troops and contrasted that to Russia’s professional and all-volunteer military.

It should be noted that the timing of this particular statement is rather interesting. Namely, the Russian military is now targeting TCC offices en masse, thus preventing the brutal practice of kidnapping regular men off the streets. Ukrainians themselves are supporting this effort, with many providing the exact coordinates of the offices of this monstrous NATO-run criminal organization. These Territorial Centers of Recruitment and Social Support (TCR and SS or sometimes just TCR), better known under acronyms such as the TCC or TCK, were established with direct Western support (or should we say directive) to enforce conscription of regular Ukrainians and prolong this NATO-orchestrated war. Worse yet, the US-led political West keeps insisting that forced conscription should be expanded to also include Ukrainian teenagers.

Obviously, this makes the Neo-Nazi junta the primary tool of NATO’s genocide against Ukrainians, with the TCC serving as the main enforcer on the ground. The Russian military has long been collecting intelligence on TCC offices and its personnel, so it’s now targeting them with pinpoint precision, disrupting the Kiev regime’s ability to forcibly fill its ranks with more cannon fodder. Expectedly, the Neo-Nazi junta keeps complaining about this, particularly in recent days. TCC personnel are universally hated in NATO-occupied Ukraine, as they’re engaged in corruption, taking bribes to “exempt” the few who can afford it, while everyone else is subjected to utter brutality and effectively sentenced to death if they’re sent to the frontlines. Due to this, TCC personnel are seen as cowards, afraid to fight the Russians, but perfectly happy to force someone else to do it.

Moscow has long sought to neutralize the TCC, but this is much easier said than done, as this monstrous NATO-run criminal organization is one of the Kiev regime’s most heavily protected institutions. Its henchmen are effectively exempt from prosecution and essentially have a carte blanche to do whatever they please, as long as they keep the meat grinder running.

As the situation on the frontlines deteriorates, the Neo-Nazi junta is in panic mode and wants to prevent the total collapse of its defenses, so it needs more cannon fodder. The Russian military is certainly aware of this, so it launched these extremely well-coordinated long-range strikes that aim to prevent this. As previously mentioned, many Ukrainians themselves are helping by providing the exact coordinates of TCC offices, as they realize this could accelerate the end of this NATO-orchestrated war.

Source Infobrics.org

The post Former Advisor to Zelensky Office Admits Russia Could ‘Crush Ukraine’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Voters have always supported the politicians who they have recognized are offering the most freedom.

George Washington’s Federalist Party offered the force to keep the British government away. Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party offered continuing independence but also more freedom than the war-supporting Federalists. Andrew Jackson’s and Martin Van Buren’s Democratic Party offered smaller governments, no central banking, and no debt. Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party offered freedom from slavery. Ronald Reagan offered freedom from 1970s inflation.

Voters have a system problem. Since the dawn of Progressive control, starting in 1894, the USA has not had a small-government major party. Fortunately for us, system design is a strong suit for Elon Musk.

Voters also have an off-the-shelf solution ready to use. The Constitution has rules to limit governments’ powers. The Constitution gives these rules force with elegant, multiple layers of sanctions: powers are separated and offsetting, so each separated power will limit others.

But from the founding of the nation until now, no party has been chartered to have an analogous constitution, so that at least one party and its representatives will be limited too. It’s high time that we create at least one such party.

A party that’s limited by a party constitution will be a major, credible advance.

A party constitution will be effective for limiting the party, and this in turn will make the Constitution effective for limiting the governments, because a party is a radically-smaller, much-more-controllable system. A party’s only appropriate power is to help its grassroots voters select good people to run for political offices. Good people will then turn and use their constitutional powers to limit others in governments.

Voters have been choosing between lesser evils, and what they’ve been getting left with has still been evil. Voters know that; voters live through that. Voters haven’t been able to see that they’ve had credible good options.

Elon Musk could easily get overpowered by donations from the cronies who are supported by our massive governments. Musk needs to spend well. Fighting it out in primaries—running cage matches to the political death, under the Republican Party’s rules of engagement, up against well-stocked cronies’ war chests—would be fighting at a severe disadvantage. It’s not desirable. And it’s not necessary. There’s a ready bypass.

A good party won’t need money to get people to hear about it. It won’t need money to smear opponents or scare voters.

Just underwrite the work of achieving and maintaining ballot access for a good party. Ballot access has been proven for years to be achievable, by various lightly-funded parties and independents in various races.

Voters are more than ready to vote for the candidates of a good party.

What voters need to see is that a party will be running candidates across the board in general elections, and that those candidates can be counted on to increase freedom.

Such a party won’t really be a third party; it will be the lynchpin of the second major party.

The dominant major party is the Progressives, who are made up of all Democrats and most Republicans. The second major party is the constitutionalists.

Currently, the constitutionalists’ ranks are being decimated by going along with Trump. Despite this, most Freedom Caucus members and allies would caucus with a constitutionalist party’s politicians. A new party need not fight for and take all the Republican-held territory at the outset. Most all of the people who have wavered would turn back and work seamlessly alongside a constitutionalist new party’s politicians.

The Constitution makes all the necessary actions legal, feasible, and ready to implement. Politicians who actually follow the Constitution will limit governments from day one, increasing freedom.

The Dutch Republic, and then the British Isles, and then the USA each proved spectacularly that an underdog’s resources can lead the world, given the right ideas and approaches.

Constitution support. Ballot access. The keys to a next surge up in freedom are well within reach for Elon Musk, and for we the people. Now, in our time, let’s get this done!

The post Elon Musk, Just Deliver Constitution Support and Ballot Access appeared first on LewRockwell.

Right next to our college in India stood a temple dedicated to Rani Sati, a woman who committed sati—ritual self-immolation—sometime between the 13th and 17th centuries. The vagueness of the date is telling: Indians—like much of the Third World—did not historically maintain systematic records. The British compiled much of what is known about India’s past, including the lives of its so-called great kings.

Civilizations such as Greece, Rome, and China preserved detailed historical records to extract moral lessons and maintain a sense of continuity. India, by contrast, relied on scattered oral traditions and myths, offering no stable chronology or critical framework.

Without the civilizational anchors of truth-seeking, introspection, and hence a shared moral vocabulary, society was fixated on short-term gain, blind to history’s causes and consequences. Change was viewed not as a moral necessity, but as a threat to the established order. It was Groundhog Day.

Avoiding Western terms—such as justice, truth, honor, fairness, honesty, and system—when explaining India is challenging. Yet, using these words clouds your understanding of its amorality. You are trying to judge an alien culture by Western standards—projecting rather than understanding. These Western concepts hold little meaning in the Indian context. Employing them traps the Western mind in dualities—good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice—while the Indian amoral mindset lacks such binary distinctions. It acts on what is expedient and what maximizes resource acquisition. There is no inner compass, only the shifting logic of the moment.

In such a culture, the abused does not seek redress but instead redirects the injury downward—toward someone weaker—to restore balance or secure advantage. Moral outrage is absent; in its place is a servile ingratiation. As Western ideals circulate today, this mindset stands in uneasy contradiction with imported, superficial notions of dignity and justice—values loudly professed but not internalized. The result is psychological fragmentation: the individual is unmoored, neither grounded in India’s past nor receptive to the ethical demands of the West. Whatever space once existed for moral growth, self-examination, or feedback has been buried beneath a polished, hollow modernity.

The amorality that characterizes Indian society can be traced to its religious landscape. Far from a coherent system of faith or values, Indian religiosity resists unified doctrine and clings to fragmented, local rituals and symbolic acts, divorced from introspection or ethical inquiry.

It is worth asking where Rani Sati fits within the so-called Hindu pantheon. Growing up, few people I knew identified as “Hindu.” Instead, they followed local deities, family gods, or regional traditions. The very idea of “Hinduism” as a unified religion was a colonial construction—an abstract category that was still slowly filtering into Indian consciousness. In reality, there was no singular pantheon, no coherent system. The transition to this manufactured identity met little resistance because Indian religions were not grounded in commandments, moral doctrines, or values comparable to those in the Abrahamic faiths or classical Western philosophy.

One casualty of this misguided fusion—based on the false assumption of a moral foundation—has been the widespread misunderstanding of Indian religiosity, both by outsiders and, increasingly, by Indians themselves. What remained became confused and performative: rituals were preserved, but their symbolic gestures were mistaken for signs of a moral system. Over time, people even projected a structure where none existed. Yet the defining feature of “Hinduism” has been precisely the absence of structure, consistency, or doctrine.

Every morning, at random intervals through the day, and again in the evening, the temple beside our college rang its high-pitched bells for hours, disrupting our studies. No one dared question the noise lest they offend the sanctity of Rani Sati. On the contrary, students regularly visited the temple to seek her blessings.

I urged my peers to report the disturbance, but none supported me. When I went to the police station alone, I was laughed at. This unquestioning reverence—untouched by moral reflection—reveals something deeper about Indian religiosity: a resistance to introspection, a total reliance on ritual, and a deliberate evasion of reason and ethical inquiry.

I bore no ill will toward Rani Sati, but I struggled to find virtue in worshipping someone whose defining act was self-immolation. It is hard to believe she acted out of love, for love, as an individual or moral sentiment, does not exist in India. Relationships are shaped not by emotional truth or duty but by transaction, hierarchy, and the pursuit of advantage. Devotion, in such a society, is not love but submission, driven by fear, conformity, and peer pressure.

This confusion between spirituality and cultural identity runs deep. What passes for religion in India is a tangled web of tribal loyalties, superstition, and spectacle. It does not elevate the soul or inquire into the good of society—it enforces obedience and chases personal, material reward. The temple is no sanctuary of truth but a stage for ego, display, and appeasement.

Spirituality requires stillness, solitude, and moral courage. But Indian religiosity, rooted in noise and fear, drowns out the possibility of self-examination. The divine is not encountered but outsourced to rituals, intermediaries, and idols that absolve the individual of responsibility.

Indian religions distract the individual with hierarchy and ritual. This externalized obedience bleeds into all domains of life. Cultural identity, mistaken for faith, creates an illusion of depth: one feels devout without honesty, righteous without wrestling with right and wrong. Belonging replaces belief. Ritual replaces revelation. To preserve itself, the system breaks the individual and infuses him—through the social process—with a deep and enduring inferiority complex.

By contrast, Western religious traditions—especially the Judeo-Christian legacy—emphasized moral accountability, truth, and the sanctity of individual conscience. Sin was internal, demanding confession, repentance, and reform, not mere performance. God was obeyed, not bribed. Prayer was a striving for alignment with the good, the true, and the just, not a transactional plea for worldly gain.

Regardless of belief, these traditions cultivated habits of self-reflection, ethical consistency, and justice. The Western individual, though imperfect, was trained to ask: Am I right? A mind shaped by expedience and shielded by relativism asks instead: Am I successful? Am I secure within my herd? This is not to deny Western failings, but their sins were, at least, subject to frameworks of truth and justice.

Without a metaphysical anchor, Indian religiosity is entirely instrumental and focused on outcomes, rather than ethics. And if one avoids projecting Western standards of objectivity or moral duality, it becomes clear that ethics is not even part of the framework. Education and careers are entangled with superstition and divine bargaining. Without a concept of sin, personal growth is impossible—only compliance, fear, and endless cycles of blame and appeasement.

Human beings need anchors. When the inner structure of reason, conscience, and moral imagination is absent, they reach for substitutes—idols, babas, celebrities, and rituals. But these are unstable external props. Lacking the stillness required for introspection, they drown in noise, distraction, chaos, and even overpowering smells and colors. There is no pause, no silence, no integration of experience.

The psyche is slippery—nothing sticks. He cannot process memory, reflect on meaning, or make principled decisions. He can only “learn” dos and don’ts—rules that, shaped by his subjective mental framework, are fleeting and must be continually reinforced through fear.

Identity clings to whatever is near: caste, crowd, religion, or trend. But these are themselves unstable, volatile, impersonal, and ever-shifting. The result is chronic instability, a kind of mass neurosis. What passes for religious fervor or national pride is only fear and disorientation in disguise.

Without inner substance, the human being is the perfect subject for manipulation by superstition, politics, and mass culture. He lives in a state of low-grade psychological panic yet lacks the language, tools, or quietude to name it. He suffers from chronic anxiety—and yet, having never examined causality or consequence, and shaped by fatalism, he can appear strangely confident, unbothered, even indifferent in situations that would drive future-oriented people to paranoia.

At a civilizational level, this absence of inner anchoring creates a gravitational pull toward the lowest common denominator. In the absence of a rational and moral fabric, nothing is sustainable. Financial and intellectual capital dissipate rather than accumulate. Forget building, inventing, or improving—what is received, even on a silver platter, cannot be maintained. Entropy becomes the only law.

But the irrationality of belief was only part of the decay. The social environment offered no refuge; it was a crucible of cruelty. In a culture governed by ritual and hierarchy, cruelty becomes casual—a way to assert dominance in a system that rewards submission and punishes integrity. This moral incoherence seeps into interpersonal life, where violence is not an aberration but a rite of passage, repeated without shame or memory of its origin.

I saw this most vividly at university.

Freshers were routinely subjected to physical and sexual abuse by senior students. They were forced to keep their eyes fixed on the ground in the presence of seniors and treated as subhuman. Often woken late at night and summoned to common areas, they endured humiliation and violence under the guise of “ragging.” The abusers—once victims themselves—perpetuated the violence without guilt. No internal compass told them they were wrong; only tradition assured them they were entitled.

The acts were degrading and brutal: some were made to urinate on live electric wires, fondle each other, or masturbate publicly. Forced anal sex was not unheard of. Many suffered lasting physical harm—one student lost an eye; others sustained permanent damage to their eardrums. Yet this cruelty was rationalized as a method of “mentally strengthening” the victims.

These were not isolated incidents of youthful sadism. They revealed something deeper: how violence, if normalized, is self-sustaining. When those same individuals became seniors, I appealed to them to break the cycle. I reminded them of their own humiliation and urged them not to inflict the same pain on others. They responded with blank stares—and the chilling rationale that they needed “an outlet” for their rage. When I suggested directing that rage toward the seniors who had once violated them, they couldn’t comprehend the idea.

Retaliation was never upward—it was always downward. Those who suffered did not seek justice, truth, or moral redress; they redirected the harm. Victims of scams or theft did not express righteous indignation. Instead, they focused on recouping their losses by scamming someone else. Being wronged was not a call to conscience but a cue to find someone weaker to exploit.

This was a civilizational absence of moral causality. Wrongdoing did not awaken the conscience; suffering did not lead to reflection. Pain taught nothing. It simply repeated itself.

This pattern—harm without introspection, pain without principle—permeated every stratum of Indian society. Injustice persisted not despite education and wealth, but often because of them. Trauma did not soften—it brutalized. Lacking moral frameworks, suffering did not ennoble; it degraded.

What remains is tribalism. In the university, the workplace, the village, or the slum—the same logic prevails: protect yourself, crush the weak, conform, or be cast out. Relationships are not governed by conscience but by group identity and fear. The dynamics I witnessed among elite students were indistinguishable from those in the most desperate corners of the country. Privilege did not civilize; it merely weaponized cruelty with greater sophistication.

People often define “karma” in poetic terms. But what I witnessed was a mechanical continuation of abuse, zero-sum thinking, and a complete absence of justice or fairness. It was the life of an automaton—reactive, unconscious, and morally vacant. Consciousness itself seemed to be missing.

The colonial institutions—bureaucracy, courts, police—meant to restrain such decay and structured to enforce the rule of law had been upended, hollowed out, and repurposed for ends precisely opposed to their original design. Shaped by and dependent on the same unjust, irrational, and amoral culture, they functioned not to deliver justice but to preserve appearances. Their goal was not resolution but equilibrium. Bribes replaced law; silence replaced accountability. Atomized and mistrustful, each person was left to fend for themselves in a society that rewarded conformity over conscience and cunning over truth.

Even in school, the rot was evident. If one student erred, the entire class was punished. Authority served not justice but domination. Teachers routinely abused their power, coercing students into taking private tuition or openly demanding bribes. This wasn’t in some obscure rural school, but my prestigious missionary institution. One teacher, whose home I visited for tuition, casually assigned us household chores. Trapped in her house, I would be asked to fetch her shoes.

Did the priests of the school—some of whom were decent men—truly not know? Or did they, like many others in India, turn away from the corruption beneath their roof?

In India, one quickly learns a harsh truth: anyone who can steal will. It doesn’t matter how much they are paid—or perhaps it does, since higher salaries often fuel greater greed. Bureaucrats began demanding larger bribes as their compensation increased. Dismissing someone for theft is rarely considered; doing so would make daily functioning impossible. In households and institutions alike, theft is not regarded as a moral failure—it is simply another cost of doing business.

By degrees, an image began to form in me: India as an amoral, materialistic society devoid of virtue. Immediate desire was all that mattered. The harm one’s actions caused others was irrelevant. No shared ethical language existed—no sense of justice, fairness, or moral repair. Animalistic instincts reigned, thinly veiled by a crumbling veneer of British formality and borrowed civility.

Living in the UK, I encountered a culture where institutions—however imperfectly—tried to protect the weak, where religion demanded personal transformation, and where truth was not a luxury but a duty. There was often someone, somewhere, who stood for what was right, anchored in fairness, truth, and a shared moral compass.

It became clear that without sane, rational, and ethical leadership, India would not merely stagnate—it would regress. Its institutions and society were already unraveling, slipping back into a pre-colonial wilderness where brute force and superstition replaced reason and law. India’s tragedy is not primarily economic or political but spiritual and moral. What haunts the country is not poverty but the normalization of vice: the ability to witness cruelty without protest, to steal without guilt, to obey without reflection, and to worship without love.

There is no shortage of temples, rituals, or gods, but the inner life is absent. Without a concept of sin, there is no redemption. Without truth, no justice. Without the courage to stand alone, no conscience. In such a society, neither reform nor revolution is possible—only repetition.

India’s thinkers and leaders often invoke the past with pride, but it is precisely the past they must be freed from. What is needed is not a return to some imagined cultural greatness but a civilizational break: a turn toward reason, truth, and moral introspection. India does not, for now, need more scientists or engineers; it requires an education in the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of truth, and the discipline of moral courage.

Alas, no one has yet found a path to this awakening—only a roulette wheel of centuries spinning in vain hope that suffering will, eventually, give rise to conscience. Perhaps India is not a problem to be solved but a condition to be accepted—a society shaped by the absence of inner anchors. It is what it is.

Contrary to what Christian missionaries once believed, nothing may be done. What the West often projects as dysfunction is, more precisely, the absence of the moral architecture it unconsciously takes for granted. When it ceases to project, it may begin to see more clearly—and recognize that India cannot be changed by top-down means. It may even begin to ask whether India needs to change at all.

To expect self-correction where no introspective mechanism exists or to demand progress where entropy reigns is to misread both India and the limits of cultural universality. Without inner transformation—without conscience, reason, and courage—even the systems cannot hold, however inherited or imposed.

The post India: Idols Without Conscience appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump and his bosses in Tel Aviv has taken one step closer to World War III.  Although Trump has negotiated a ceasefire with Tehran, it is only a temporary solution, not an end to the war that the US and Israel have started themselves. The purpose of the ceasefire between Iran and Israel is to re-arm the Zionist state for another major attack in the coming weeks and months ahead and obviously, Iran knows this.  The Iranians don’t trust anything that comes from the Trump regime. Why would they?  Especially after Israel attacked Iran while Trump claimed that he was seeking a new deal on Iran’s nuclear program even though he pulled the US out of the previous deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal conducted by the Obama regime in 2015.

This is the moment in history that we all in the alternative media have been warning about for a long time that a global war will begin in the Middle East.  The world will remember Trump and the rest of his regime which is staffed with Zionists, neocons and globalists as war criminals who secretly greenlighted Israel’s attack on Iran.

The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is no surprise given the fact that the US, Israel and their allies has been working on this war plan for years.  Once Trump was running to be the 47th president of the United States, a new war in the Middle East was guaranteed because Iran was the ultimate target.  Trump is a man with an extreme narcissistic ego who has claimed in the past that he is the chosen one, a man who would easily launch a war and be the one to stop “evil forces” in the Middle East from destroying the land of Israel. That’s why Zionists in the US and in Israel supported him from the start.

Keep in mind that Trump had dodged the draft for the Vietnam war five times, four times because he was in college and the fifth time was because he had “heel spurs” which is described as protrusions caused by calcium buildup on the heel bone.  However, there were always remedies to cure heel spurs such as stretching, orthotics and surgery, but according to the New York Times, Trump said that “over a period of time, it healed up.”  I would bet that it miraculously heeled right after the Vietnam war had ended.  Trump acts like a tough guy by sending other people’s kids to die in another war that has nothing to do with the US and its security, but everything to do with Israel’s expansionist plans which is called the ‘Greater Israel project.’ 

Trump’s God Complex

Trump claims that he is the chosen one by God because of lunatics like the former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, an American Zionist who is now the current US ambassador to Israel wrote to President Trump that he “will hear from heaven and that voice” of God. Since Huckabee heard the voice of God, he clearly must be on serious pharmaceutical drugs, but I digress, what Huckabee wrote to Trump is sort of the ‘end of the world’ prophecies, the coming apocalypse for Christian evangelicals.  By now the world sees that Washington is full of neocon warmongers and Zionist psychopaths who are ready to unleash World War III.  What the world is witnessing is an insane regime in the Whitehouse willing to risk an unwinnable war for the state of Israel.

Huckabee said that he is “your appointed servant in this land,” saying he was sent by Trump to Israel “to be your eyes, ears and voice and to make sure our flag flies above our embassy. My job is to be the last one to leave. I will not abandon this post. Our flag will NOT come down!”

Although I am not a fan of ‘Politico,’ but they published an interesting story called, ‘Does Trump Actually Think He’s God?’ by Michael Kruse on why Trump thinks he is some sort of God’s chosen leader who was put on earth for a reason.  Trump has been mentioning God even though he is most likely an atheist, an absolute closet globalist and a crony capitalist at heart.  Trump is obviously on the Jeffrey Epstein list, so this is a man who has no morals, but he says that he is chosen by God:

I’m supposed to be dead,” Donald Trump said, the day after he got shot at his rally last summer in Butler, Pennsylvania. “I’m not supposed to be here,” he said four days after that. “But something very special happened. Let’s face it. Something happened,” he said two days after that. “It’s … an act of God,” he said the month after that. “God spared my life for a reason,” he said in his victory speech at Mar-a-Lago in November. “I was saved by God to make America great again,” he said in his inaugural address at the Capitol in January. “It changed something in me,” he said in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton in February. “I feel even stronger”

The next thing that Kruse says is that Trump went from “nihilistic” to becoming “messianic”:

This is new. It’s not how he talked for most of his long and voluble life. He has always, it should be said, seen himself as special, and he has always, of course, been notably self-aggrandizing. But the longtime self-described “fatalist” invariably maintained a sort of shoulder-shrugging acceptance that whatever was going to happen was beyond his or anyone else’s control. Over the last 10 or so months since Butler, however, and especially since his reelection and the start of his second administration, Trump’s outlook has shifted in essence from stuff happens and nothing much matters to something happened and it couldn’t matter more. His rhetoric has gone from borderline nihilistic to messianic

There are videos on YouTube that suggest Trump is the “chosen one,” I wish this was a joke, a comedy, but unfortunately, it’s not, one of the videos is called the ‘7 BIBLICAL SIGNS THAT TRUMP IS GOD’S CHOSEN ONE’:

It is incredible to see how people believe this nonsense.  There are other videos avaliable with the same ‘Trump is the chosen one’ propaganda, in fact, a film produced by a retired firefighter Mark Taylor called ‘The Trump Prophecy’ (see video here) based on a supposedly true story of Taylor’s personal journey to healing, but everything changed in 2011, when he claims that he experienced a revelation from “God” that a new leadership even before the 2016 Presidential Election was going to take place and that will change the world.  Who was that leader?  You guessed it, Donald Trump.  You can’t make this up.  This is not only insane, but also disturbing.

The Associated Press published an article based on the same subject, ‘President Trump Offers Himself as the Chosen One’ as they quoted Trump as saying that he is “the best president for Israel in the history of the world” he continued, “like he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he’s the second coming of God.”

All this talk and the people believing that Trump is the chosen one is dangerous.  This is a man who is backed by Israel and his Evangelical Christian’ base who support their president and would give their lives for the state of Israel.

These Evangelical Christians which many live in the US bible belt believe in biblical prophecies and the role of Israel in the “end times” when Jesus Christ returns to the Holyland. They believe that re-establishing the state Israel after thousands of years is in the ancient prophecies and that “Jewish people” which in this case is the Zionists who are not in any way semitic, are returning to the land and that this would bring about the second coming of Jesus.

Maybe the Christian Evangelicals or Christian Zionists should remember what the New Testament says in Revelation 2: verse 8–9 , “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of the first and the last, who was dead and came to life: “I know your affliction and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say that they are Jews and are not but are a synagogue of Satan.”

Let’s hope, Trump, Israel and his Christian Zionist supporters wake up from their apocalyptic dreams and look at the reality that a world war is upon us and that Jesus Christ will not appear out of the skies and save humanity especially if nuclear warheads are used in the next global conflict.

This article was originally published on Silent Crow News.

The post Trump’s Apocalypse? The ‘Chosen One’ and the Prospects of World War III appeared first on LewRockwell.

Graham Dugas wrote:

Before in 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/08/argentina-election-javier-milei-economists-warning

In between

https://x.com/laderechadiario/status/1941317561167249624

2025 reality

https://x.com/Bangershell11/status/1941388193070448878

The post Keynesian predictions and Misean realities appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Interesting Engineering

The post 2,000-year-old Roman ‘Bigfoot’ mystery: 5,000 giant shoes unearthed in Britain appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes, Ryan McMaken:

Dan Bongino is exactly who you’d expect him to be: A Ted Cruz level Israel worshipper and servant of the warfare state: 

When recently asked what political issue is “near and dear to your heart” he states: “Israel and the defense of Israel”.

Bongino has now also totally reversed himself on the Epstein “client list” and says the official government position has always been true. 

The post Dan Bongino’s top political issue is “the defense of Israel” appeared first on LewRockwell.

After attorney general Pam Bondi claimed that she had Jeffrey Epstein’s client list on her desk, her FBI leaked a memo to Axios that says no such client list exists (and that Epstein did not commit suicide in prison).  I wonder what the Vegas odds are that the exact opposite is true?

The post Does This Prove that Trump is On Epstein’s “Client List” appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Do We Need ‘The America Party’? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks.  John Frahm.

The Gateway Pundit

The post Over the Past 24 Hours Eight Dormant Bitcoin Wallets Were Awakened for First Time in 14 Years on the 4th of July Withdrawing 80.009 Bitcoins Equaling $8.69 Billion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Hi Lew,

Great article! My Mom is 93. My Dad would be 93 as well, but he died at the age of 89. Yes, they had tough childhoods, but they sure were optimistic, hard workers. Mom still is. My parents came from nothing. Dad had to borrow a neighbor’s car in a snowstorm in Minneapolis to take Mom to the hospital when I was born. They worked hard and became millionaires. But they never lost their roots and common touch. They never got arrogant.

People like my parents won’t come again for a long time if ever.

The post Born between 1930-1946 appeared first on LewRockwell.