How Israel ends
The Malibu Fires 6 Months Later
Thanks, Johnny Kramer.
The post The Malibu Fires 6 Months Later appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Quiet Part Of The Epstein Deception – today on the Liberty Report:
The post The Quiet Part Of The Epstein Deception – today on the Liberty Report: appeared first on LewRockwell.
Space Shuttle Theatre
Writes Greg Privette:
Hi Lew,
I saw the above noted post today.
It reminded me of an old joke. An American and Soviet citizen are arguing about how advanced their countries space programs are. The American boasts that his country invested millions and developed the ball point pen so the American astronauts could write in zero gravity. The Soviet citizen said they just gave the cosmonauts pencils.
The post Space Shuttle Theatre appeared first on LewRockwell.
“No Evidence” of Epstein Blackmail Operation Not Surprising
Click Here:
The post “No Evidence” of Epstein Blackmail Operation Not Surprising appeared first on LewRockwell.
London Police Facial Recognition Scans Millions
Thanks, John Frahm.
The post London Police Facial Recognition Scans Millions appeared first on LewRockwell.
Lo zombi UE usa Trump come spauracchio per divorare i suoi cittadini
È davvero sconcertante come la stampa finanziaria (inglese) riesca a rimbambire talmente tanto le presunte voci “indipendenti” da farle ripetere a pappagallo determinate tesi senza che esse si fermino un attimo a riflettere. Uno di questi esempi è il rollover americano dei $7000 miliardi. Tutti preoccupati, tutti pronti a essere gli avvoltoi sul cadavere americano... Un noto aforisma di Twain recita che “le voci sulla mia morte sono state enormemente esagerate” ed è quanto di più calzante ci possa essere in questo contesto. Infatti esiste già un cadavere e puzza da fare schifo. Anzi due: Banca d'Inghilterra e BCE. Qui c'è da ricordare che l'Ucraina ha mancato un importante pagamento dei propri debiti e che gli asset emessi a supporto di essi circolano nel mercato dei finanziamenti rapidi europeo, il cui collaterale accettato vedrà un significativo allentamento in termini di normative riguardanti la cartolarizzazione. Entrambe suddette istituzioni stanno liquidando i rispettivi Paesi. La FED invece sta facendo il contrario. Questo significa altresì che non c'è più un canale coi dollari che possa salvare la baracca nel momento del bisogno a scapito degli Stati Uniti. La BCE e la BoE devono mettere in campo il loro di capitale se vogliono sopravvivere (ovvero il contribuente inglese ed europeo, dapprima). Infatti l'unica cosa che la BCE può fare è comprare debito deteriorato della periferia europea e parcheggiarlo presso la Bundesbank, ma ormai anche la Germania ha perso quel blasone che l'ha caratterizzata storicamente. Questo gioco può andare avanti per il momento grazie all'enorme mole di debito americano immagazzinato da inglesi ed europei durante la presenza della Yellen al Dipartimento del Tesoro e al surplus commerciale (strutturale) nei confronti degli USA. Il rialzo dei tassi da parte di Powell e i dazi di Trump fanno parte della stessa strategia per annullare questi “vantaggi”. La velocità del primo fenomeno ha reso sommerso il bilancio delle banche europee, dato che hanno comprato diversi asset con rendimenti ridicoli in passato e adesso sono incagliati; il secondo vuole chiudere il rubinetto commerciale in modo da contrarre ulteriormente l'offerta di eurodollari. Nel frattempo i capitali continuano a essere attirati negli USA e, attraverso il GENIUS Act, il mercato dei titoli del Tesoro americano avrà una portata più capillare a livello internazionale dato che verranno tokenizzati tramite Tether e coperti da un hard asset come Bitcoin. Chi è quindi che si trova DAVVERO nei guai? Chi naviga nel collaterale non contabilizzato in modo appropriato, come gli USA, o chi non ha niente come l'Europa?
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/lo-zombi-ue-usa-trump-come-spauracchio)
Donald Trump è il movente che continua a mantenere in piedi la classe dirigente occidentale. Qualsiasi imbroglio antidemocratico presente nella lista dei desideri dell'UE viene ora spacciato come rimedio contro di lui (e se non è Trump, è la Russia).
Secondo loro gli Stati Uniti non sono più un partner affidabile nella difesa. Dobbiamo, quindi, dare più potere a Bruxelles e inviare miliardi alle aziende produttrici di armi.
Secondo loro gli Stati Uniti non sono più un partner economico affidabile. Dobbiamo, quindi, aumentare la competitività indebolendo il lavoro e rafforzando la finanza.
Gli elettori del Regno Unito potrebbero aver optato per la Brexit, ma Londra e Bruxelles stanno “sfidando Trump” con una dichiarazione di “libero e aperto scambio” che include negoziati “su difesa e sicurezza, pesca ed energia, nonché un'intesa comune su quali argomenti saranno trattati nei negoziati intensivi per il ripristino della Brexit quest'anno”.
La cosa strana di questi piani, tuttavia, è che prevedono la dipendenza dalle armi e dall'energia degli Stati Uniti e l'allineamento con gli obiettivi geopolitici e geoeconomici degli Stati Uniti.
Un recente commento di Rosa Balfour, direttrice di Carnegie Europe, riassume perfettamente queste argomentazioni. In un articolo intitolato, “L'Europa ha cercato di proteggersi da Trump, ora sta elaborando un piano B”, spiega perché l'UE non ha altra scelta che riorientare la spesa sociale verso l'industria bellica.
La versione romantica della storia recente secondo la Balfour inizia il 28 febbraio. È allora che ha avuto luogo “l'umiliazione televisiva del presidente ucraino Vladimir Zelensky” e “l'Europa si è resa conto di non poter più contare sul suo alleato di lunga data, gli Stati Uniti”.
La sconvolgente profondità di questa presa di coscienza non può essere sopravvalutata. I leader politici degli stati europei, dell'Unione Europea e della NATO hanno dato prova di compostezza e coordinamento, ma dietro le quinte la colonna sonora è una frenetica jam session di free jazz con tonfi drammatici e una lunga pausa: il silenzio che accompagna la consapevolezza che la zona di comfort europea è finita.E ora cosa stanno facendo questi “leader politici” composti e coordinati? Annunciano che l'Ucraina è la prima linea di difesa dell'Europa, elaborano grandi progetti per una “coalizione dei volenterosi” e dichiarano che l'Ucraina diventerà un “porcospino d'acciaio”.
La coalizione dei volenterosi si è disgregata, il porcospino d'acciaio è stato ridicolizzato e mentre quelli al Cremlino non stanno perdendo il sonno, gli europei invece sì. Questo perché, come scrive la Balfour, la Commissione europea “può svolgere un ruolo di supporto mobilitando risorse finanziarie e gestendo complesse trattative interne”.
Questo è uno dei tanti modi di dirlo...
La Commissione si sta lentamente avvicinando all'invocazione di poteri di emergenza per far approvare parte del suo fondo di riarmo. Il Parlamento europeo sta reagendo, ma il fatto è che Ursula può comunque farlo con un sostegno minimo da parte dei governi dell'UE. Probabilmente sta solo aspettando il momento giusto. Diamo un'occhiata allo stato dei miliardi destinati alla militarizzazione europea.
Il 19 marzo la Commissione ha presentato una proposta da €150 miliardi, la prima tranche di un totale di almeno €900 miliardi, per istituire lo strumento di azione per la sicurezza in Europa (SAFE) attraverso il rafforzamento dell'industria europea della difesa.
Vuole procedere con l'articolo 122, che prevede poteri di emergenza, e richiede solo una maggioranza qualificata in Consiglio – a differenza del consueto consenso – articolo che consente a Ursula e ai suoi amici di aggirare i fastidiosi veti dei Paesi membri. La procedura per l'articolo 122 è la seguente:
1) la Commissione propone una misura del Consiglio; in seguito a ciò 2) il Consiglio adotta la misura in linea con [voto a maggioranza qualificata]. Non sono previsti ulteriori elementi o partecipanti.Questo articolo consente alla proposta di bypassare i negoziati parlamentari e di passare direttamente al Consiglio per la negoziazione e l'adozione. Il ruolo del Parlamento si riduce a presentare suggerimenti e richiedere dibattiti.
Tanti cari saluti al vostro ordine basato sulle regole democratiche...
Con una votazione a scrutinio segreto del 23 aprile, la commissione giuridica del Parlamento europeo ha appoggiato all'unanimità un parere legale che respingeva il tentativo della Commissione di aggirarlo sul fondo di riarmo da €150 miliardi.
Sebbene si trattasse di un voto non vincolante, segnalava sì un'opposizione al piano di Ursula, ma non si trattava di una presa di posizione di principio a favore della volontà del popolo o di un'idea romantica del genere.
No, si trattava piuttosto di dividersi le fette della torta, dato che i lobbisti dell'industria bellica europea sono sempre più attivi a Bruxelles e cercano di assicurarsi che i loro clienti vengano ricompensati. E gran parte della debole opposizione riguarda l'introduzione di una clausola “acquista solo europeo” più forte nel SAFE (che attualmente richiede che il 65% dei materiali di consumo e dei sistemi complessi per la guerra provenga dall'UE, dall'Ucraina o dagli stati SEE/EFTA, tra cui Turchia e Norvegia).
Perché la commissione di Ursula deve mettere da parte il Parlamento e alcuni stati membri per spendere €900 miliardi in acquisti militari? È spiegato chiaramente nella loro proposta. C'è la solita sciocchezza sulla Russia:
L'UE e i suoi stati membri si trovano ora ad affrontare un'aggressione russa sempre più intensa contro l'Ucraina e una crescente minaccia alla sicurezza da parte della Russia. È ormai chiaro che tale minaccia persisterà nel prossimo futuro, considerando che la Russia è passata a un'economia di guerra che le consente un rapido potenziamento delle sue capacità militari e la ricostituzione delle sue scorte. Il Consiglio europeo ha pertanto sottolineato, nelle sue conclusioni del 6 marzo 2025, che “la guerra di aggressione della Russia contro l'Ucraina e le sue ripercussioni sulla sicurezza europea e globale in un contesto in evoluzione costituiscono una sfida esistenziale per l'Unione europea”.Ovviamente c'è anche la scusa di Trump:
Allo stesso tempo gli Stati Uniti, tradizionalmente un forte alleato, ritengono chiaramente di essere troppo impegnati in Europa e di dover riequilibrare la situazione, riducendo il loro ruolo storico di principale garante della sicurezza.Una domanda che viene spontanea è cosa succederà a quest'ultimo argomento ora che l'amministrazione Trump si è legata all'Ucraina attraverso il cosiddetto accordo sulle terre rare, ma sicuramente se le potenze europee sono arrivate fin qui con crisi create ad arte, saranno in grado di superare questo ostacolo sottolineando l'insistenza di Trump su quella che chiamano una pace ingiusta per l'Ucraina.
Da qui il “riarmo” per decreto tramite emergenza sovranazionale – con la Balfour del Carnegie e tutti gli altri plutocrati buffoni di corte nei think tank transatlantici che lo acclamano come una vittoria contro le orde autocratiche fuori dalle mura dei loro sepolcri imbiancati. Ecco di nuovo la Balfour che riassume lo stato d'animo di questa folla:
[...] è stata tracciata una traiettoria di cambiamento, con un potenziale trasformativo, non solo per il continente europeo, ma anche per la riorganizzazione globale delle relazioni internazionali post-americane. La jazz band ha trovato il ritmo, anche se la melodia non è del tutto armonica.Non so se sia la musica che la Balfour sta ascoltando, o il tintinnio dell'oro e dell'argento. Anche se può essere difficile sentire qualcosa al di fuori del frastuono proveniente dall'élite, c'è sempre un accordo mancante nel genere militarista. Di sicuro la Balfour, appassionata di jazz, saprà che la curiosità era considerata uno degli ingredienti essenziali della musica. Se applichiamo questo concetto alla sua metafora jazzistica, potremmo iniziare a porci alcune domande come:
• Perché l'UE ha bisogno di mettere in atto tutta questa militarizzazione?
• Perché non può esserci pace con la Russia?
• Perché le nazioni europee hanno contribuito a sabotare i negoziati di pace tra Kiev e Mosca?
• Perché l'UE ha aiutato gli USA a rovesciare il governo dell'Ucraina e a usare il Paese come ariete contro la Russia?
• Perché l'élite dell'UE desidera così tanto la guerra contro la Russia?
• L'UE non è forse più sicura e prospera grazie a legami amichevoli e a scambi commerciali con la Russia?
E perché l'UE, che nel complesso è già seconda al mondo per spesa per la difesa, deve spendere cifre ancor più esorbitanti? Quanto la renderà sicura, competitiva e indipendente?
Queste domande non vengono mai affrontate. Tutto invece rientra nell'ordine naturale delle cose, ovvero che la Russia sia nemica dell'UE e che quest'ultima debba dotarsi di armi costose e di grandi dimensioni a causa della cattiveria di Trump. La cosa triste è che questo messaggio incessante diffuso dai media europei sta funzionando, almeno secondo i sondaggi dell'UE stessa. Ciò non sorprende affatto, considerando che questo messaggio viene pompato senza sosta dai media dell'UE.
In ogni caso, i governi europei stanno correndo. Sedici Paesi chiedono all'UE maggiore margine di manovra fiscale per investire ingenti somme nella difesa – richieste che non vengono mai avanzate durante l'infinita austerità sociale.
Sì, i cittadini dell'Unione continueranno a vedere il loro tenore di vita scendere, ma non preoccupatevi, l'allargamento dell'UE e la maggiore spesa per la militarizzazione porteranno a una maggiore “competitività”. Non ditemi che non l'avete già sentita questa panzana...
Profit margins for Weapon and Ammunition at Rheinmetall went up from 23% to 28.5% from 2023 to 2024. Of every Euro in public money spent on weapons from Rheinmetall, the company makes 28.5% return on sales, quite spectacular even compared to other Rheinmetall business. pic.twitter.com/SvKmjNcB30
— Isabella M Weber (@IsabellaMWeber) April 28, 2025Nonostante i notevoli ostacoli che l'industria europea della difesa deve affrontare (e un breve periodo di raffreddamento dovuto allo shock dei dazi), i prezzi delle sue azioni stanno salendo poiché gli investitori si aspettano un sostegno incondizionato da parte di Bruxelles.
A proposito di ostacoli…
Una ricerca dello Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) dimostra che negli ultimi cinque anni l'Europa ha aumentato le sue importazioni di armi di due volte e mezzo rispetto ai cinque anni precedenti, con i due terzi provenienti dagli Stati Uniti.
Anche altri membri di Carnegie Europe nutrono dubbi sul programma UE. Ecco cosa dice Judy Dempsey, ricercatrice senior di Carnegie Europe:
Ditelo alla Polonia. Sta rapidamente potenziando la sua infrastruttura di difesa acquistando kit americani. Quando Varsavia ha voluto fare acquisti altrove, come in Corea del Sud, ha subito forti pressioni da parte di Washington affinché non lo facesse. Questo è un punto importante. Gli Stati Uniti vogliono che l'Europa si assuma maggiori responsabilità per la propria difesa, ma non a spese dell'industria militare americana. Gli Stati Uniti sono un importante fornitore di componenti militari per molti Paesi europei. Per fare questo passo ci vorrebbero tempo e la volontà politica dell'Europa di costruire una strategia comune di difesa e approvvigionamento.Oltre alla considerevole pressione politica, c'è anche il fatto che i tempi di consegna per quanto riguarda le capacità di difesa sono lunghi. Quindi, parte della strategia dell'UE è quella di inviare miliardi di dollari in più all'Ucraina affinché possa potenziare la sua industria della difesa. Un modo molto più economico per produrre armi piuttosto che in Europa occidentale e ha già un settore manifatturiero per la difesa attivo e funzionante.
Bene... ma ci sono delle falle in questa logica?
Innanzitutto l'Ucraina è ora il maggiore importatore di armi al mondo, assorbendo l'8,8% dei trasferimenti globali. In secondo luogo i Kinzhal russi potrebbero avere voce in capitolo nella produzione dei produttori di armi ucraini.
È difficile capire cosa tutto questo significhi per la competitività europea, figuriamoci per il medio Josef, José, o Giusseppe. Ecco cosa dice la Balfour su questo tema che dovrebbe essere venduto ai proletari:
Dal punto di vista politico, per garantire il sostegno pubblico al riarmo europeo e compensarne gli inevitabili costi, gli sforzi del settore della difesa dovrebbero essere parte di una più ampia strategia di innovazione economica e tecnologica. Infatti questi sforzi potrebbero dare impulso all'economia europea stagnante. A livello UE le ricette sono disponibili nelle recenti raccomandazioni in materia di competitività, produttività e innovazione tecnologica.
I primi 100 giorni di Trump stanno spingendo l'UE a dare slancio a progetti in corso ormai da anni. Legare questi obiettivi all'allargamento dell'UE a Ucraina, Moldavia e Balcani occidentali offre una nuova prospettiva per l'espansione del mercato unico. L'ampliamento dell'UE e l'approfondimento delle relazioni con altri Paesi europei – come Regno Unito, Svizzera e Norvegia – contrasterebbero la frammentazione che la competizione tra grandi potenze e le disgregazioni politiche interne stanno infliggendo al continente.
È spaventoso per la sua sicurezza meccanica e semplicistica. Da nessuna parte in questo PowerPoint si intravedono i notevoli svantaggi, che, al limite più disastroso dello spettro, includono la completa distruzione dell'Europa.
Forse la speranza migliore è che i piani di questi folli per il riarmo dell'UE siano solo un gigantesco racket. Ma si potrebbe dire lo stesso del complesso militare-industriale statunitense, e guardare cosa ha scatenato: morte e distruzione senza fine e numerose guerre perse. Una differenza fondamentale tra i piani di militarizzazione transatlantici, tuttavia, è che gli Stati Uniti sono isolati tra due oceani. L'UE confina non solo con la Russia, ma anche con un regime neonazista al collasso in Ucraina, il che rende l'adesione a un complesso militare-industriale una proposta molto più rischiosa.
I racket hanno un modo tutto loro di prendere vita. Anzi, si potrebbe sostenere che l'attuale traiettoria dell'UE sia quella di uno zombi spinto dalla russofobia, che ridistribuisce denaro verso l'alto in nome di tale odio. Il problema è che l'aspettativa di vita non è lunga per gli zombi e per chi li circonda.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/
Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una “mancia” in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.
A Stopover in the Heartland
I left my California idyll, and soared into milky, hazy US skies.
I touched down to change planes in Minneapolis, which I recalled as having been the corn-fed, friendly Midwest.
I saw that now, almost everyone employed by the airlines, as well as everyone working as ground crew, was of Somali descent, or were recent arrivals from Somalia.
They spoke Arabic or Somali to one another, not even bothering with English; passengers and colleagues alike were greeted with a hand to the heart. The flight attendants for Delta, out of Minneapolis, wore chic little grey attenuated hijabs, pinned to their hair. (They happened also to be in furious moods.)
I have no problem with reasonable legal immigration; I have no problem with other religions. But I did wonder what had happened to all of the US-born former staffers that used to be employed in those fairly well-paying jobs. It was not diversity I was seeing now, but a new kind of hegemony.
I wondered what kind of security issue it might represent when an entire major US travel hub was now under the management of a single recently-arrived nationality; one that is not our own.
The fact that the entire sensitive Minneapolis-St Paul airport infrastructure — which I was surprised to learn is a joint civil and US military facility — is in the hands of Somalis, is an example, to me, of the chaos and vulnerability we import when we in the West lift humans wholesale out of their sometimes-dangerous, sometimes-abusive contexts, and re-situate them in influential Western contexts, with almost no acculturation, or assimilation metrics.
“The immigrant” is positioned always in liberal discourse as in need of “our” “help.” The narrative is always about “our” “responsibilities” to such immigrants, and all of the immigrants are always positioned within this narrative as being a/ helpless and b/ innocent. And C — the immigrants’ culture that is being imported along with the immigrant, is always supposed to enhance the United States’ culture, simply because it is “other” from the nasty, racist, homogenous culture of the United States.
In fact, this narrative actually to me itself seems to be quite racist; simply a new, NGO-reframed revamp of the condescending 18th-century European trope of the non-European innocent, admirable “Noble Savage.”
This narrative, indeed, reveals, in my view, a profound ignorance about the actual world — a lack of awareness of the kinds of struggles that peace-loving, justice-loving, freedom-loving people, living in failed states and under oppressive regimes, actually face.
Some societies are in fact neither helpless nor innocent.
At the level of leadership and of social contracts, and especially of the treatment of women and girls, Somalia, to take just one example, is a horrible, culpable society.
Individual Somalis no doubt are likely to be people of great decency. But look at Somali norms and society as a whole, which we are also importing when we resettle people en masse.
According to Amnesty International, all parties in that nations’ current civilian conflict, a confrontation between the government and a militia group named Al-Shabaab, abuse their own civilians and deprive their own people of human rights. In other words, no Somali party is innocent.
The crisis in Somalia is not currently derived from those cliches of racialized identities, “white against black”, or “colonizer versus colonized”. It is, rather, a crisis of Somali against Somali. And very specifically, it is a crisis of Somali men against Somali women and girls.
There are half a million internally displaced Somali people, 80 per cent of them women and children, who are suffering horrific abuses, including sexual assault, forced marriages, and “gender-based violence” — meaning beatings and female genital mutilation — at the hands of Somalis.
According to the European Union Agency for Asylum, female genital mutilation affects almost the entire female population of Somalia:
[Source: https://www.fgmcri.org/country/somalia/]
The chart above, explains FGM/C Research Institute, shows a dip in the ages 15-19 simply because girls that age may not have been “cut” yet.
In 2018, three young girls, two of them sisters, died within a single week in Somalia, from complications arising from female genital mutilation.
A 13-year-old girl died of female genital mutilation in Somalia in 2021 — and the Guardian reported a rise in the practice during the pandemic.
Yet, points out Amnesty International: “The federal [Somali] parliament failed to pass bills on sexual offences and female genital mutilation.”
According to the FGM/C Research Initiative, which centers on studying the issue of female genital mutilation, a staggering 99.2% of girls and women in Somalia aged 15-49 have endured female genital mutilation. The average ages when Somali girls are “cut” is from ten to fourteen years of age.
Even though, worldwide, many Muslim feminists and even progressive Imams are speaking out against the practice, and pointing out that female genital mutilation is not in fact demanded by Islam, 72% of Somali girls and women believe that this mutilation is a requirement of their religion.
The Somali community has the highest percentage of genitally mutilated women in the world; there are 61,000 Somali people in the state of Minnesota alone, and many sources confirm that Somali girls and women continue to suffer genital mutilation while in the United States. In other words, Somali immigrants in Minnesota have not stopped this abuse of “their” girls and women, just because they are now also Minnesotans. A scholarly article asserts that between 150,000 and 200,000 American African girls are still at risk of undergoing genital mutilation:
“Sanctuary for Families indicates that Somali and other African families import traditional practitioners from overseas into the United States to circumcise their daughters, and in some cases, they send their daughters abroad for circumcision. The practice of sending their daughters abroad has become known as “vacation cutting”’.
So these communities’ arrival physically in America did not magically heal this cultural corruption. This culture of mutilation has not in fact vanished. This nation did not magically wash this cruelty, away.
Somali “female circumcision” is different from other forms — it is by far the most severe. Somali FGM is Type III genital mutilation, which means the excision of the entire outer part of girls’ genitalia, and the stitching together of the raw wound that is left behind. Somali FGM involves: “the complete removal of the clitoris and labia minora, together with the inner surface of the labia majora (Jones, Ehiri, &Anyanwu, 2004; Rasaq, 2012; Weir, 2000).”
Women and girls subjected to this kind of mutilation suffer chronic bleeding, horrific pain during intercourse, problems in childbirth, infections, and dramatically increased mortality: “This increased mortality rate translates into an estimated 44,320 excess deaths per year across countries where FGM is practised. These estimates imply that FGM is a leading cause of the death of girls and young women in those countries where it is practised accounting for more deaths than any cause other than Enteric Infections, Respiratory Infections, or Malaria.”
Somalis now represent over one per cent of the Minnesota population. This organized, politicized community, of course, can now swing elections. Why should we think that, since this horrific practice endures even now in the US, a ten per cent make-up of Somalis in Minnesota, won’t alter American culture in the direction of this kind of misogyny — a form of misogyny that Somali women themselves are seeking to combat?
For that matter, why should we assume that a mass influx of immigrants from closed societies, will champion open societies?
There is no freedom of expression in Somalia, for example. Journalists are being killed, arrested and detained there. The head of a media group, Ali Nur Salad, was arrested when he posted on social media that the drug khat was being used by Al-Shabaab members. Salad was denied legal representation. He faces charges “including “offending the honour or prestige of the head of state”, “committing obscene acts”, “distributing obscene publications and performances”, “insult”, and “criminal defamation”, as well as restrictions on travel and [on] speaking to the media.”
The government of Somalia raids live television debates: “On 6 January, Somaliland intelligence officers raided the offices of MM Somali TV in Hargeisa, the Somaliland capital, interrupting a live debate about […] Ethiopia/Somaliland […]. They arrested the MM Somali TV chair, Mohamed Abdi Sheikh (also known as “Ilig”), Ilyas Abdinasir, a technician, and Mohamed Abdi Abdullahi, a reporter.” The International Federation of Journalists condemned the arrests.
Somali journalist Mohamed Abdi Sheikh and two other reporters who were arrested with him:
That — that failed state, that society without the rule of law or protections for free expression; that society that sees fit to gouge little girls between the legs with razors, to excise their clitorises, and to injure them permanently; those bad norms; as opposed to “bad individuals” or “a bad group of people” — let alone “a bad ethnicity” — are what we should object to importing wholesale; in this case, to run the management of our key airport hub in the sensitive center of our nation.
Reporters in Somalia, women in Somalia, refugees in Somalia, even Parliamentarians in Somalia — “On 2 September, Somaliland police arrested Mohamed Abiib, an outspoken opposition MP, and detained him in Mandera Prison” —- live in a state of fear. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations call Somalia a “failed state.”
It is okay for us here in the West not to want to live in the state of fear, that many Somalis, Afghanis, rural Pakistanis, in much of civil society — as well as journalists in Mexico, and anti-trafficking activists in Colombia — suffer.
Voice of America, in an article about Somali “Political Victories in the West”, reports that Somalis in Minnesota have become well organized politically: “Abdirahman Sharif, the imam and the leader of the Dar-Al-Hijrah Mosque in Minneapolis says another reason Somalis have risen in U.S. politics is because they are a tight-knit community.
“When Somalis came to [the] U.S., they moved to a foreign country where they could not communicate with people. So, for them, being close to people from their country meant having someone to communicate with and that helped them to unite their votes, and resources for political aspirants,” Sharif said.” Imam Sharif says nothing about Somalis wanting to learn to communicate with their American neighbors, or about their wishing to help America to succeed, or wishing to contribute to the shared destiny of all Americans. In this article, at least, the Somali political voice is a separatist one. The article describes Somali electeds gaining high office also in Britain and Canada and Finland, Norway and Sweden. Other Somali leaders stress with pride the separateness of the community. A Swedish Somali leader similarly does not mention wishing to contribute to Sweden, which welcomed the community, or wishing to assimilate into Swedish society successfully. Rather he too is proud of the separateness of the community:
“Mohamed Gure, a former member of the council of the city of Borlänge, Sweden, said there are unique things that keep Somalis together and make them successful in the politics in Europe.
“The fabric of Somalis is unique compared to the other diaspora communities. They share the same ethnicity, color, language, and religion. There are many things that keep them together that divide them back home. So, their togetherness is one reason I can attribute to their successes,” Gure said.”
Somalia is just one example of a separatist immigrant society with viciously misogynist practices. But across Europe, and in Britain, other viciously misogynist societies’ norms are being imported wholesale, along with mass separatist immigration.
British and European and Irish women have started to protest against the harassment, intimidation and sexual violence directed against them by immigrant men from various countries that treat women and girls badly; these attacks are being minimized by the courts in these “advanced” nations. In Britain, a British mother of a 12 year old girl, Lucy Connolly, who had recently lost her young son, is in jail for 31 months for a tweet she posted in the wake of the murder of three little British girls, at their dance practice, by an immigrant. Conolly called for immigrant housing to be burnt down “for all I care” and for immigrants to be deported.
The post A Stopover in the Heartland appeared first on LewRockwell.
Today’s Technology: The Gateway to Psychotronic Weapons and the Reprogramming of Humanity
Humanity is facing a challenging turning point ahead as the new global system readies to reset the worlds’ governments by the year 2030. This is the United Nation’s sinister Sustainable Development scheme which will completely restructure society and laws and pulverize the free will of every human being. These freedom-stealing sustainable development goals have already been adopted into American society, and yet, the majority of citizens respond to this infringement of their rights with a passive whatever and who cares attitude. American patriots have a long history of laying their lives down for their freedoms. Why are they surrendering them now without resistance?
There is no soft way to answer this question. Our government has been using Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) and psychotronic mind weapons on the populations to manipulate thought processes so that the upcoming Great Reset transitions without mass mutiny by the people.
The sobering subject on psychotronic weapons that I am about to talk about in this article will sound science fiction and conspiratorial to some readers, therefore I want to preface this article with an excerpt from a lengthy 2009 substantiated research report on the history of the US concerning mind-weapons, and the US government’s blatant disregard for human rights. The report, documented on Project Censored, is titled Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights, and was written by Peter Phillips, Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored, Lew Brown, Psychologist, and Bridget Thornton, History major at Sonoma State University.
The report states:
“This research explores the current capabilities of the US military to use electromagnetic (EMF) devices to harass, intimidate, and kill individuals and the continuing possibilities of violations of human rights by the testing and deployment of these weapons…”
I can verify from my own experience that every word in the above research report is accurate and that mind-altering weapons are being targeted against American citizens. For the last year, both my wife, June, and I, have been victims of a psychotronic weapon attack, perpetrated by the US government, which has caused us bodily harm and mental torment. No surprise here. Since 2019, we have both exposed the Covid pandemic hoax, the weaponized mRNA Covid vaccines, Agenda 2030 and other corruption and fraud inside this government.
Before I talk in more detail about our horrific ongoing ordeal, I want to provide solid leverage to my claims that our government and foreign governments are using harmful technology as weapons of warfare against the mental and physical health of populations worldwide. Do not think for one moment that any government will spend billions of dollars to develop directed energy weapons to attack a few political dissidents. No, this type of weaponized system is highly sophisticated and expensive warfare, and developed to restructure and dominate the minds of the masses into obedient and easily controlled lapdogs.
Over the last thirty years, the infiltrated powers-that-be have deliberately submersed and encaged humanity within a hula-hoop of harmful electromagnetic and radio wave technologies, enabling easy indoctrination over human minds. Wireless cell phones, computers, cell towers, radio towers, and so forth are being used as gateways to these mind-altering directed energy weapons. “Nah, not true,” you might argue. “My cell phone provides me with convenience, easy communication, and entertainment!” Yes, it does all of that, but deception always comes in pretty boxes.
Directed Energy Weapons of the mind are not new technology. The Russians themselves claim they are in the 5th generation of mind-controlling DEW development. This is true. Their technology on how to create a controlled beam of energy from far distances to harm human targets can be traced back as far as 1920. The testing stages were surpassed long ago and they are now super weapons of mass suppression and destruction.
Psychotronic weapons are Directed Energy Weapons, and defined as weapons that aim to control or modify the psyche, or attack the sensory and data-processing systems of the human organism, with the goal of confusing or destroying the signals that normally keep the body in equilibrium. Other mind-altering weapons that fall under Directed Energy Weapons are Neuroweapons, High Energy Radio Frequency (RF) weapons or Influence weapons, Lasers, High-powered Microwaves (non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse), Sound or Acoustic weapons, Infrasound weapons, and Ultrasound weapons. All these weapons harm both the mind and the physical health of the body.
Today’s run-away and unregulated technologies have submerged humanity and the environment into unparalleled harmful levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Symptoms of EMF include skin inflammation, headaches, nausea, dizziness, tinnitus, sleep disorders, fatigue, fibromyalgia, heart arrhythmia, memory loss, brain fog, anxiety, mood disorders and thoughts of suicide.
Validations on the dangers of EMF to human health were completed over five decades ago, and still being confirmed through scientific research, and yet today we are fed constant lies by the government-controlled media that WIFI and RF technology is completely safe for human health. But even the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation as a possible carcinogen and the California Health Department issued warning that cell phone radiation increases the risk of brain cancer and low sperm counts.
On February 2nd, 1998, the US Army War College Quarterly published an amazing article by Timothy L. Thomas, titled “The Mind Has No Firewall.” He addresses a truth that few citizens ever think about, and that is the simple logic that the human body was formed much like a computer, containing countless data processors. Our brain is extremely unique, and without its constant signaling to the other parts of our body, our physical, cognitive and emotional state would be out of balance and impaired, even causing death. Every human being should be required to read Mr. Thomas’ article, because the advancements in technology today are extremely damaging to human health, and can be used as weapons against us, individually or as an entire populace. Humans can be hijacked, destroyed and eliminated just as easily as a computer that has been infected with a destructive and irreparable virus.
Our cell phones, our computers, our TV’s, our cars, and the chips in our credit cards all track our whereabouts, allowing the controllers to know where we stand, travel, eat and sleep. They have gotten the world so dependent on their WIFI gadgets, and the convenience they provide, that the people have surrendered their privacy and freedoms, and allowed their governments across the world to confine them within an invisible wall of harmful radio frequencies, wireless signals, and excessive electromagnetic fields. All of these gadgets, like cell phones and laptops, are gateways to psychotronic weapons.
If the government does not like you, they will track you from every device you own. They will follow your signals from the satellites above, and aim highly advanced Directed Energy Weapons at your brain while you sleep, or use radios and phone lines to send unhealthy electromagnetic impulses. We are now living in a precarious time where the human body is being manipulated and debilitated on a daily basis, without our knowledge or consent. And like Mr. Thomas’ article warns, computers have firewalls, but our minds do not. We are constant open targets for all governments whose aim is to reset society by 2030, and keep citizens tightly-surveilled and controlled during the final takeover. Sadly, we as a people allowed them to imprison us under their technology, and they now own us.
The evils of psychotronic warfare were exposed back in 1999, by Russian author, N. I. Anisimov, in his informative book entitled Psychotronic Golgotha. Anisimov was spokesperson for psychotronic victims, and interviewed by several Russian mainstream news departments in the 1990’s. He appeared in the 1998 documentary, Zombies of Russia, aired by German television and has been quoted in Timothy L. Thomas’ article, “The Mind Has No Firewall.”
Anisimov explains how these direct energy weapons are developed to penetrate through any type of barrier, using powerful generators, with a high degree of accuracy, and striking victims at any distance. These weapons are attached to a person’s biological field so that intellect and psychological type can be observed and studied, and depending on the program for that particular victim, artificially induce various illnesses into his organs.
The most ambitious (and chilling) of the USSR’s goals for mind-weapon programs provides a clear explanation on why humanity is not told the truth about the ill-effects on the human body caused by today’s WIFI and RF technology. They are the following:
– Controlling human behavior from a far distance using electromagnetic fields.
– Creating physical and biological influence and harm on humans using electromagnetic fields, magnetic fields, and acoustic waves, without their knowledge.
– Erasing information from the brain using electromagnetic fields.
– Creating a new race of bio-robots, using distant influencing of populations with the goal to create an obedient and loyal people to the government and its political system.
– Preplacing psychotronic weapons in space {satellites}, with the goal of controlling and managing the populations.
Is the above information a reason why on October 2nd, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced bill H.R. 2977, the “Space Preservation Act of 2001?” He was certainly aiming to outlaw space-based weapons and ultra-low frequency weapons systems, including psychotronic weapons that were directed at individuals or populations for mood management and mind control. The bill was referred to the House Committees on Science, Armed Services and International Relations—and was expediently vetoed.
What Anisimov goes on to mention in his book grabbed my attention, especially because I had warned (and still warn) people against being immunized with Covid mRNA vaccines. He affirms that the USSR’s secret service conducted vaccinations on the population, secretly injecting almost 30% of the populace with micro-schematic chips. The chips, once injected, allowed recipients to be radio-controlled and tested with radio frequencies. This resulted in creating controlled bio-robots for the Soviets’ ideological manipulations.
Could it be that the psychopathic gangsters running the Western nations faked a pandemic to warrant and mandate mass inoculation of the mRNA vaccines onto the public for the same reason the USSR secretly injected micro-chips into their population—to pave a pathway for people to receive signals inside their bodies for use of psychotronic weapons on a mass scale? This would explain why mRNA bioweapon technology was used in the development of the Covid vaccines, allowing for easy transport of genetic or other added nanoscale materials directly into cells.
Micro-chipped Covid vaccines might explain the reason why everyone was ordered to stand 6-feet apart from each other. Medically, the 6-foot rule carried no soundness, and was not recommended by CDC based on data; but makes sense by a rogue pack of wolves who needed to ensure signaling was working on a mass level. And since cell phones, computers, and other WIFI gadgets can be tracking devices and transmit signals, the governments worldwide are guaranteed the masses remain psychologically disrupted.
According to Anisimov, the Soviets used powerful generators and microwave apparatuses for their psychotronic weapons. These generators could be stationary or portable, located on earth or orbiting above via satellites. I suspect the attack on me and June comes from a satellite above. I discovered online that there is a top-secret military facility located at Fort Huachuca near Sierra Vista, Arizona, three hours away from where we had been living, which tests Ultra High Radio Frequency (UHF) Satellite Communications and Electronic Weapons. Electronic Warfare (EW) is the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or attack an enemy. I have no idea what they are up to, but testing for ultra-high radio frequencies in relation to satellites is something every human being should be very worried about, especially in light of the information I am providing in this article.
It took some time for me and June to figure out that we were targets of a DEW. Our nightmare began mid-2024. June began feeling severe pain in her left ear. Antibiotics and over-the-counter medications did not bring relief. Then sporadic body tremors and brain fog hit her, which provided clue to a strong electromagnetic field going on inside our home. A few days later, a nerve-wracking radio frequency squealing sound battered our ears and brain, along with constant ringing and pressure. Upon examination I noticed a red-raw laser-like burn in June’s left ear canal. The sound, like a hot-wired energy ray, intensified at night, mainly between the hours of 8:00 pm and 6:00 am. Our entire bodies heated up like a microwave and our blood pressure soared. We could not get relief from the intensity of the torment on our mental and physical health. We were sleeping with metal and copper sheets over our heads to try and block the wave, but those barriers were useless. The pressure and sound became so unbearable at night that we fled our home and drove to various hotels each night, but that beam of energy followed us. We were confused and baffled because none of our neighbors heard the sound or felt sick.
A month later, the pitch died down enough for us to function inside the house during the day. Around this time, I experienced a rapid weight loss of about 40 pounds, lost the majority of muscle mass in my entire body, and my hair started falling out. I went to the doctor, and he prepared me for the possibility that I had cancer. I did not tell him about our troubles, but I suspected the intense radio frequencies had destroyed my health. I was right, a full body scan showed no cancer.
I resigned from my job and we moved from our home, hoping that by relocating to another state we would get our life back. Instead, that mind weapon followed us from state to state. As we drove across country, we noticed newly erected sky-high radio towers strategically located mile after mile, approximately ¼ to ½ miles apart on every highway, back road, in every rural town, busy city, and in every state. Next to these radio goliaths tall cell towers had also been raised. These towers enabled that high-pitch energy to continually assault our ears, and we suspected that our cell phones were transmitting signals of our whereabouts by those innumerable radio towers.
We were correct in our assessment regarding our phones. When we started parking a good distance away from our hotel rooms, and leaving our phones in the car, we felt relief from the pitch. We drove to the Eastern coast, and lodged at an extended-stay hotel for a month, and felt joy to get our minds back. But when our Arizona car tabs expired, and we had to register our cars in that new state, we provided the DMV with our hotel address. The following day, that pitch found us again, and we had to bolt from the hotel. We drove across the border to a neighboring state, and found another hotel. And for two more months we dodged the wave.
After that few months, we let our guard down, and believed we were free from the attack. We badly wanted to settle and moved into a nice house, but a week later, within eight hours of updating our address at the Social Security office, we were hit again with that weapon, causing us to flee our home again, and return to the previous hotel. It was obvious the US government was involved, because we became heavily targeted both times we updated our new addresses at government agencies.
In 2018, Stew Magnuson wrote an article in “National Defense,” titled Exclusive: Doctors Reveal Details of Neuro-Weapon Attacks in Havana. His article divulges the truth behind the mysterious 2017 attacks on American personnel while employed at the US Embassy in Havana, Cuba. Three expert physicians, Dr. Giordana, Dr. Hoffer and Dr. Balaban, investigated the 25 cases of reported illnesses, and concluded that Directed Energy Weapons, or more precisely stated, a series of wide-scale electronic neuroweapon attacks, caused the disruption and damage to the victim’s brains.
It is interesting to note that the DEW attacks in Havana did not happen at the Embassy, or in one location, but took place at numerous locations, either at a victim’s home or at a hotel. The targeted employees reported that it felt as though an invisible beam of energy had zeroed in on their whereabouts inside their dwelling places, and would only stop when they opened the front door. As well, the attacks seemed individually personalized because other personnel, living in the same dwelling place as the victims, but in other rooms, felt no symptoms whatsoever—strongly suggesting the sophistication of these psychotronic weapons in being able to lock in on individuals.
An article in Space and Defense (2016), called Attack on the Brain: Neurowars and Neurowarfare, by Armin Krishnan, is a revealing and honest draft on the dangers involved when Directed Energy Weapons are secretly tested and enacted without oversight and public knowledge. He reveals that the MK ULTRA mind-control documents of the 1950’s and 1960’s prove that the CIA and US military desired to have superior intelligence on hypnotic and physical control of the mind. Krishnan believes that neuroscience will lead to the development of neuroweapons, because neuroweapons can manipulate mental states, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and behavior. And this explains why he mentions DARPA’s intrusive interest (after 9-11) on developing brain research for the National Security sector. DARPA played a big role in Covid vaccine development and implementation (let’s not forget the millions who died after taking the vaccine), and I am not surprised to see them putting their big noses in interests of the mind.
Krishnan mentions a quote from Vladimir Putin that should solidify the horrors of DEW technology:
“Such high-tech {mind} weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons, but will be more acceptable in terms of political and military ideology.” Vladimir Putin
Psychotronic weapons are tangible threats against humanity and can replace the use of biological or nuclear weapons. The controllers in power are striving to restructure world governments and need to keep the worlds’ populations habitually dependent on their EMF-charged technology. Citizens who are targeted as a whole for mind manipulation under these weapons (more than likely at night) might not feel symptoms, as the waves and beams of RF will be synchronized and aimed at a lax potency, to bring about controlled changes to mind and body. And if the government choses to eliminate individuals or entire populaces, they could increase frequencies on those towers using generators mounted on satellites above.
I have no doubt that the unhealthy saturation of tall radio towers spread uniformly across the landscapes of this nation is a “weaponized” move by this government for possible preparation of DEWs against the population. The taller the tower, the longer the range, as they can transmit signals over buildings and hills, and those higher power transmitters emit stronger signals, which can travel further, with signals possibly reaching up to 45 miles. So, why are those radio towers put up so close together across America, every ¼ to ½ mile apart in most cases? On the website “Steel in the Air,” a United States 2023 map reveals a whopping 175,000 active radio/cell towers. This is extremely disturbing!
I am wrapping this up with the last paragraph published on the US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights report, which I mentioned at the beginning of this article, because I find it the best answer on how We the People can take back our country and preserve our minds, bodies, freedoms, and God-given rights to pursue happiness.
“For the US Government to unilaterally declare that our country will not comply with international human rights laws, nor uphold the core values of our nation’s foundation is an indication of extremism that supersedes the values and beliefs of the American people. When such extremism exists we need to take seriously the founders’ declaration that, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.” Declaration of Independence 1776
References:
https://www.projectcensored.org/us-electromagnetic-weapons-and-human-rights-2/
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=parameters
https://www.psicopolis.com/psipol/arch/psychotronic.htm
https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/
https://appliedenergetics.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/02/microwave-weapons-havana-syndrome-experts
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/its-official-california-issues-caution-cell-phone-use
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300161?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039625788900884
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014001354
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001300020001-6.pdf
https://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/Space_and_Defense_9_1.pdf
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/report-soviets-used-top-secret-psychotronic-weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome
https://techwellness.com/blogs/expertise/phone-track-you-when-it-is-powered-off-shut-down-emf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
The post Today’s Technology: The Gateway to Psychotronic Weapons and the Reprogramming of Humanity appeared first on LewRockwell.
War Is a Certainty
Recently, an associate offered the following observation with regard to the likelihood of war in the immediate future:
“The big guys like to play chess with the world. It’s the biggest game. The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money. The military needs wars to exist. The politicians need both to exist.”
Whilst he was reiterating a concept we have discussed on many occasions, it occurred to me that I have never seen the subject defined so succinctly, nor so informatively.
Let’s break it down:
The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money
Just as bankers increase their profit as a result of upward and downward economic fluctuations, so, too, do they benefit from war. It is not unusual for a given bank to finance those who would create armed conflict, and indeed, they sometimes bankroll both sides. Whilst banks have other means of making money, war is often more profitable than conventional banking.
The military needs war
The military-industrial complex is in the business of selling armaments to governments. Although armament sales may tick over nicely in peace time, they boom in war time. Therefore, any armament supplier will benefit from war. It matters little whether it is an all-out war or a series of smaller ventures. The object is sales.
The politicians need both banks and war
This is true in the sense that politicians need both bankers and an active military to thrive. Political campaigns depend upon funding. Banks and armament suppliers have long been a major source of campaign funds for candidates of the primary political parties. (If each party is well-paid before the election, favourable treatment towards banks and armament suppliers is assured, regardless of which party wins an election.)
But there is further necessity for armed conflict with regard to politicians. First, it is a truism that a country rarely changes leaders during times of war, and nothing is more imperative to the politician than gaining a further term of office.
Second, nothing distracts the voting public like war. If a politician is receiving increased criticism from the voters, a good war can be counted on to get the voters concentrating more on the war than on the politician’s poor stewardship.
Third, governments typically remove the freedoms of a populace over time. Whilst citizens may object to the loss of their freedoms in normal times, they are often more willing to relinquish them “temporarily” in times of war, “for the good of the country.” Not surprisingly, lost freedoms are seldom reinstated after a war.
Consider the words of James Madison, the fourth US President:
“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
Generally speaking, the citizens of most countries would prefer to avoid war. After all, they rarely benefit from it. But then, the impetus for war is almost never generated by the people of a country. Unless a nation is actually attacked, in nearly every case, the people need to be talked into going to war.
Convincing the People
A good example of this is the US, who, since World War I, have needed convincing on almost every occasion when political leaders proposed war. In World War I, the Lusitania incident was created jointly by the UK and the US to motivate them. In World War II, the goading of Japan was needed. In Vietnam, the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident was needed, and so on.
Suffice to say that, when bankers, the military industrial complex, the politicians, or all three decide to instigate war, war will come to pass. Whether it is a conservative government or a liberal government, if a clear threat does not exist, one will be invented.
At the present time in history, the countries of the First World have created the greatest pillaging of the state coffers that has ever occurred. As complacent as the peoples of both the EU and the US have been in recent decades, there does seem to be a growing understanding amongst the peoples that they have been scammed.
The respective governments are running out of rabbits to pull out of the hat to distract the masses. It would therefore seem that there has been no time in history in which war was so needed by national leaders—both as a distraction to the populace and as a last squeeze at the monetary lemon, prior to the inevitable crash.
And so, what does that mean to the reader? Assuming he is not invited to take part, shouldn’t the drums of war be of little interest to him? Well, in terms of his own physical safety, that may well be true, but here is an historical fact to consider:
Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first.
No venture is more costly than warfare. The EU and the US are bankrupt now. Those presently living in those locales may escape actual duty in the military, but they will unquestionably be expected to pick up the tab through taxation and inflation.
Those who presently feel that their obligations to their governments are already barely manageable might wish to consider what they will be, both during and after a major war.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The post War Is a Certainty appeared first on LewRockwell.
‘The Land of Performance’: Trump Wanted a Perfect War, a Headline Showstopper
“Depending on who you ask, the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan was either a smashing success that severely crippled Tehran’s nuclear programme, or a flashy show whose results were less than advertised … In the grand scheme of things, all of this is just drama”.
The big issue – second only to ‘what next in Iran’ and how they might respond — says Michael Wolff (who has written four books on Trump), is “how the MAGA is going to respond”:
“And I think he [Trump] is genuinely worried, [Wolff emphasises]. And I think he should be worried. There are two fundamental things to this coalition – Immigration and War. Everything else is fungible and can be compromised. It’s not sure those two elements can be compromised”.
The signal from Hegseth (‘we are not at war with the Iranian people – just its nuclear programme’) clearly reflects a message being ‘walked back’ in the face of MAGA pushback: ‘Pay no attention. We’re not really doing war’ is what Hegseth was trying to say.
So, what’s next? There are basically four things that can happen: First, the Iranians can say ‘okay, we surrender’, but that’s just not going to happen; the second option is protracted war between Iran and Israel with Israel continuing to be attacked in a way that it has never been attacked before. And thirdly there is attempted regime change — although this has never been successfully achieved by air assault alone. Historically, America’s regime changes have been accompanied by mass slaughter, years of instability, terrorism and chaos.
Lastly, there are those who warn that nuclear Armageddon is on the table with the aim of destroying Iran. But that would be a case of self-harm, since it likely would be Trump’s Armageddon too — at the midterm elections.
“Let me explain”, says Wolff;
“I have been making lots of calls – so I think I have a sense of the arc that got Trump to where we are [with the strikes on Iran]. Calls are one of the main ways I track what he is thinking (I use the word ‘thinking’ loosely)”.
“I talk to people whom Trump has been speaking with on the phone. I mean all of Trump’s internal thinking is external; and it’s done in a series of his constant calls. And it’s pretty easy to follow – because he says the same thing to everybody. So, it’s this constant round of repetition …”.
“So, basically, when the Israelis attacked Iran, he got very excited about this – and his calls were all repetitions of one theme: Were they going to win? Is this a winner? Is this game-over? They [the Israelis] are so good! This really is a showstopper”.
“So again, we’re in the land of performance. This is a stage and the day before we attacked Iran, his calls were constantly repeating: If we do this, it needs to be perfect. It needs to be a win. It has to look perfect. Nobody dies”.
Trump keeps saying to interlocutors: “We go ‘in-boom-out’: Big Day. We want a big day. We want (wait for it, Wolff says) a perfect war”. And then, out of the blue, Trump announced a ceasefire, which Wolff suggests was ‘Trump concluding his perfect war’.
And so, suddenly — with both Israel and Iran apparently co-operating with the staging of this ‘perfect war headline’ — “he gets annoyed that it doesn’t run perfectly”.
Wolff continues:
“Trump, by then, had already stepped into the role that ‘this was his war’. His perfect war. Television drama at the highest level: War to create a headline. And the headline is ‘WE WON’. I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them. What we saw subsequently was his frustration at the spoiling of an outstanding headline: They’re not doing what he tells them”.
What is the broader ramification to this mico-episode? Well, Wolff for one believes Trump is unlikely to get sucked into a long complex war. Why? “Because Trump simply does not have the attention span for it. This is it. He’s done: In-boom-out”.
There is one fundamental point to be understood in Wolff’s analysis for its wider strategic import: Trump craves attention. He thinks in terms of generating headlines — each day, every day, but not necessarily the policies that flow from that headline. He seeks daily headline dominance, and for that he wants to define the headlines via a rhetorical posture — moulding ‘reality’ to give his own showstopping Trumpian ‘take’.
Headlines then become, as it were, a sort of political dominance which can subsequently metamorphose into policy — or not.
Nonetheless, it will not be quite as easy as Wolff suggests for Trump to simply ‘move the spotlight on’ from Iran — although Trump is a master at finding a new point of contention. For fundamentally, Trump has committed himself to the ancillary headline of ‘Iran will never have a bomb’. Note that he does not define that in policy terms, but gives himself wiggle-room for a possible later victory claim.
Yet, there is another fundamental point here: The Israeli attack on Iran on 13 June was supposed to collapse Iran like a house-of-cards. That is what Israel expected — and what Trump clearly expected too: “[Trump’s phone calls on the eve of the Israeli surprise attack] were all repetitions of one theme: Were they going to win? Is this a winner? Is this game-over? [The Israelis] are so good! This is really a show–stopper”. Trump foresaw the possible collapse of the Iranian State.
Well … it wasn’t ‘game over’. Israelis may be hugging themselves in excitement at the Mossad pièce de théâtre on 13 June; at the ‘professionalism’ of Mossad-led decapitations; the assassinations of scientists, the cyber and the sabotage attacks. Mossad is acclaimed by many in Israel — yet all were tactical achievements.
The strategic objective — the ‘be all’ and ‘end all’ of it — was a bust: The ‘House-of-Cards’ did not implode. Rather, it powerfully rebounded. Instead of Iran being rendered weaker, the attack succeeded in firing-up Shia and Iranian national identities. It has ignited a largely dormant national fervour and passion. Iran will be the more resolute in the future.
So, if the Israeli 13 June assault didn’t succeed, why would the plan go any better second time around and with Iran fully prepared? A long attritional war with Iran may be Netanyahu’s preference to fuel his own hoped-for ‘Great Victory’ headline. But Netanyahu cannot now pursue such delusions (neither can Israel survive an attritional war) – without substantive American help (which might not be forthcoming).
Though Trump’s very evident queasiness (as painted by Wolff’s interlocutors) over whether the Israeli sneak attack would prove to be a quick win or not, is suggestive of Trump’s inner temper: “Is this a winner? Is this game-over? It needs to be a win: It has to look perfect: In-boom-out”.
These repetitive enquiries to those around him spell more a lack of self-confidence, rather than suggest that he wants — or has the attention span — for a long-drawn out slug-match, bereft of a clear ‘game over’ moment.
Too, he will be rightly fearful of the effect on his MAGA base of a long war, as well as on young Trump voters (who are already beginning to drift away from Trump – as focus group polls suggest). Trump’s majorities in both Houses are incredibly precarious. $300m could tip them either way.
Recall too, the second fundamentally important point is that Israel was attacked in a way that it has never been attacked before. Israel still hides the extent of the damage inflicted by Iranian missiles; but even senior Israeli security watchers – as they digest the incrementally exposed extent of damage done to Israel — are drawing the bitter lesson that the Iranian ‘programme’ may not be able to be destroyed by military means. But only through a diplomatic agreement of some sort — if at all.
Regime Change also has been revealed as a chimaera. Iran has never been as united and as steadfast as it is now. The threat to kill the Supreme Leader also completely backfired. Four Shia leading religious authorities (Marja’iyya), including the celebrated Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, have issued rulings that any attack on the Supreme Leader would trigger a jihad fatwa obligating all of the Ummah (community) to join with religious war on America and Israel.
Negotiations between the US and Iran reaching an agreed outcome seem far off. The IAEA has made itself a major part to the problem, rather than forming any part of a solution. Trump’s attention span on the Ukraine ‘ceasefire’ ploy seems to be ebbing — and this possibly might be the eventual outcome with Iran too. Long negotiations leading nowhere, as Iran quietly re-starts its enrichment programme. And presumably Israel launching further assaults on Iran, leading to Iran’s inevitable response – and escalation.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The post ‘The Land of Performance’: Trump Wanted a Perfect War, a Headline Showstopper appeared first on LewRockwell.
Illiquid, Overvalued
As “dip buyers” get eviscerated, more dominos fall, and at a tipping point, the herd realizes the tide has reversed and it’s time to sell–but alas, it’s too late.
Illiquid, Overvalued describes a great many assets that are on the books as “rock-solid investments.” Illiquidity means there are few if any buyers for the asset being offered for sale, and this can arise from various conditions.
1. Credit is tight and expensive, limiting the pool of potential buyers to those with cash.
2. Nobody wants the assets because they’re grossly overvalued.
3. The pool of buyers with the expertise and financial backing needed to buy the asset is inherently limited.
4. “Animal spirits” have left the room and buyers are “on strike” due to caution / fear of future losses.
Bill Ackman outlined some useful principles of illiquidity in a recent commentary on X in his discussion of the illiquid nature of many assets held by Ivy league university endowment funds:
“Harvard’s endowment is principally invested in illiquid private assets including real estate, private equity, and venture capital funds.
Real estate and private equity funds are highly levered so relatively small changes in asset values can have a large impact on equity values. For example, if a real estate fund’s asset values decline by 15% and the assets are levered 60%, the fund’s equity value will decline by 37.5%.
The increase in cap rates and interest rates have impaired real estate and private equity asset values. These funds do not generally mark to market as public assets are marked leading to a wide disparity between public values and private values when overall values decline.
Venture funds generally mark their assets to the last round valuation so these marks can also be overstated as these values can become stale.
I believe that a substantial part of the reason why many private assets remain private despite the stock market near all time highs is that the public market will value private assets at lower values than they are being carried at privately.”
In other words, assets held privately can be “marked to fantasy” because they’re not exposed to the market’s appraisal of their liquidity and value, which are two sides of one coin: if nobody has the cash and willingness to buy the asset, its value is essentially zero, regardless of its “book value.”
When Alan Greenspan issued his mea culpa in late 2013 about missing the subprime mortgage implosion and the resulting Global Financial Meltdown (Why I Didn’t See the Crisis Coming Foreign Affairs), he identified two sources of his failure to “see it coming”:
1. He assumed markets would remain liquid, i.e. that a buyer would emerge for every seller
2. The total failure of everyone’s sophisticated models to predict the collapse of confidence.
The core failure lay in the models’ reliance on the notion that humans make decisions rationally as Homo economicus, when the reality is we are extremely prone to irrational exuberance (a.k.a. running with the euphorically greedy herd) and panic (running off the cliff with the herd). He invoked Keynes famous “animal spirits” as the missing variable in economic models.
Irrational “animal spirits” generate “tail risk,” events that supposedly happen only rarely but when they do happen, they trigger outsized consequences, and the Fed’s models failed to accurately account for “tail risk” because they happen more often than statistical models predict.
All this boils down to illiquidity caused by a panic-button urgency to sell and a profound reluctance to buy: When “animal spirits” are confident in ever-higher asset valuations, participants place a constant bid under the market because prices will keep going up so I’ll make more money. This constant bid is called liquidity: cash is flowing into the asset class, be it stocks or housing or cryptocurrencies or commodities.
When “animal spirits” turn to panic, sellers rush to sell as buyers vanish as they fear that prices will keep going down so I’ll lose more money. Buying into a downtrend is known as “catching the falling knife”: the initial “buy the dip” players have their heads handed to them on a platter, and those on the sidelines decide not to try to catch the falling knife.
This is an illiquid market: the bid keeps dropping until buyers are willing to gamble that “this is the bottom.” But should asset prices continue sliding after an initial euphoric pop higher–“the bottom is in, buy!”–then those who held back find their caution reinforced: that wasn’t the bottom after all, and everyone who jumped in lost money.
The post Illiquid, Overvalued appeared first on LewRockwell.
Tariffs Destroy Consumer Choice
Retail sales were down for May with the AP reporting, “The figure was pulled down by a steep drop in auto sales, after Americans ramped up their car-buying in March to get ahead of Trump’s 25% duty on imported cars and car parts. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.3% in May.”
This is no surprise to my wife. In a recent visit to her favorite luxury import car dealer, she was told, “Germany hasn’t sent us any cars in six months. We have no inventory.” Expecting sympathy from her MAGA-inclined girlfriends when she says there are no cars to buy, they respond to this tariff anecdote with “good.”
One of my wife’s great regrets was never meeting Murray Rothbard. But his words explain what she’s annoyed about, “Protectionism not only injures the American consumer directly, by using coercion to prevent him [or her] from buying the cheaper textiles or cameras or automobiles that he [or she] would like to buy.”
In her case, it isn’t cheaper automobiles she’s looking for, but autos that she likes that are her preference and that are, in her mind, of higher quality than automobiles made in the US. She’s desired these cars since she was a little girl and now she can afford them, but current government policy is keeping her from getting a new one.
The administration’s tariffs will raise the price of domestic vehicles and keep auto workers employed. But at the same time “injure all American consumers by keeping up prices, keeping down quality and competition, and distorting production.”
My wife’s BFFs wax patriotic about all this tariff nonsense, believing the country will be better off. And believe me, no one in this group is missing any meals. But, as Rothbard wrote,
Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of less efficient producers, at the expense of more competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.”
“But tariffs are two things if you look at it,” the president said in October, in an interview with Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait. “No. 1 is for protection of the companies that we have here, and the new companies that will move in because we’re going to have thousands of companies coming into this country.”
The idea that foreign companies of any size will move their operations to the US in a matter of months is magical thinking. When Micklethwait said such changes would “take many, many years.” Trump’s retort was they will come right away. These companies will just pack a suitcase and catch a plane.
Ryan Zinke—who served as Secretary of the Interior for two years during Trump’s first term—tells us why Trump loves tariffs. “Tariffs are a tool the president enjoys because it’s personal power,” Zinke told HuffPost. “It’s personal ― he doesn’t have to go through Congress. He can exercise personal power.” Back in the good old days, tariffs took an act of Congress.
The president is a mercantilist. And, as Rothbard explained, “the mercantilist, of the sixteenth century or today, looks at trade from the point of view of the power elite, big business in league with the government.… the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers…” Even consumers who just want to buy a new car of her choice.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.The post Tariffs Destroy Consumer Choice appeared first on LewRockwell.
The De-weaponization of the CIA
“All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump.” — CIA Director John Ratcliffe
Former CIA Director Brennan Faces Perjury Problems After CIA Director Ratcliffe’s Review Uncovers Russia Hoax Testimony Lies. But will Trump’s Department of Justice do anything about it? The Democrats intended to imprison Trump and tried to assassinate him. Republicans, however, are afraid that prosecuting a high ranking official discredits the US government in the eyes of citizens and the world. Brennan will get a pass so Republicans can save Washington’s reputation. See here.
Remember how the whore media and the whore Democrats lied through their teeth about a Putin/Trump conspiracy to steal the 2016 election? Remember the group of whores who created a mysterious website, PropOrNot, that branded those of us who wrote objectively about the Russiagate charges “Putin agents/dupes”? Labeling me a “Russian agent” scared away half of my subscribers. It shows how frightened Americans are to be associated in any way with an unapproved narrative.
Were you one of the millions of dumbshit Americans who fell for the completely transparent “Russiagate” hoax?
Americans are so naive. They fall for every lie told to them. Remember the “war on terror”? It was a war for Greater Israel. For two decades American lives and money were squandered in destroying 5 Arab countries for Israel. Israel never needed to make peace, because Israel had dumbshit Americans to fight wars for them.
Israel is still relying on Americans. Netanyahu, who is indicted in Israel for financial crimes and in the international court for crimes against humanity, says Washington’s destruction of five countries “transformed the Middle East beyond recognition.” Netanyahu arrived yesterday in Washington for the third time in six months to give Trump his marching orders for Iran and to solidify Israel’s falsely claimed recent battlefield victory over Iran. Netanyahu says he is ready to “expand the circle of peace.” He has come to tell Trump how to do this for him.
Perhaps Ratcliffe can deliver a truthful report on the “war on terror” and how the Zionist neoconservatives launched it with their “New Pearl Harbor”–9/11–but that would be a bridge too far.
The post The De-weaponization of the CIA appeared first on LewRockwell.
Imperial Hypocrisy About “Terrorism” Hits Its Most Absurd Point Yet
The US has removed Syria’s Al Qaeda franchise from its list of designated terrorist organizations just days after the UK added nonviolent activist group Palestine Action to its own list of banned terrorist groups.
The western empire will surely find ways to be even more hypocritical and ridiculous about its “terrorism” designations in the future, but at this point it’s hard to imagine how it will manage to do so.
Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp writes the following:
“Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Monday that the Trump administration is revoking the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the al-Qaeda offshoot that took power in Damascus in December 2024.
“HTS started as the al-Nusra Front, which was the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria until the group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, who is now Syria’s de facto president, rebranded. In 2016, Sharaa, who was known at the time as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, announced he was disassociating from al-Qaeda, and thanked the ‘commanders of al-Qaeda for having understood the need to break ties.’
“Sharaa renamed his group HTS in 2017 and ruled Syria’s northwestern Idlib province until he led the offensive that ousted former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the end of last year. The US has embraced the new Syrian leader despite his al-Qaeda past, which included fighting against US troops in Iraq.”
US Revokes Terror Designation for HTS, the Al-Qaeda Offshoot That Took Over Syria
by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave #Syria #HTS #AlQaeda https://t.co/1uNEYYWAD0
— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) July 7, 2025
This move comes as Sharaa holds friendly meetings with US and UK officials and holds normalization talks with Israel, showing that all one has to do to cease being a “terrorist” in the eyes of the empire is to start aligning with the empire’s interests.
So that was on Monday. The Saturday prior, the group Palestine Action was added to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist groups under the Terrorism Act of 2000, making involvement with the group as aggressively punishable as involvement with ISIS.
The “terrorism” in question? Spraying red paint on two British war planes in protest against the UK’s support for the Gaza holocaust. A minor act of vandalism gets placed in the same category as mass murdering civilians with a car bomb when the vandalism is directed at the imperial war machine in opposition to the empire’s genocidal atrocities.
Even expressions of support for Palestine Action are now illegal under British law, leading to numerous arrests over the weekend as activists expressed solidarity with the organization. Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, who is British, has been formally reported to UK counterterrorism police by UK Lawyers for Israel following the musician’s public statement saying “I support Palestine Action. It’s a great organisation. They are non-violent. They are absolutely not terrorist in any way.”
Roger Waters reported to counter-terror police after declaring support for Palestine Action
This is the ridiculousness of the country, it borders on the absurdhttps://t.co/W0p5FUlQ1k
— Esheru (@EsheruKwaku) July 7, 2025
So let’s recap.
Nonviolent protest against a genocide that’s being backed by the western empire: Terrorism. Banned. Nobody’s allowed to support this.
Being actual, literal Al Qaeda but aligning with the interests of the western empire: Not terrorism. Okie dokie. This is fine.
These hypocrisies and contradictions of the empire are worth drawing attention to because they clearly show that the empire does not stand where it claims to stand. For decades we’ve been told that western military explosives are falling from the sky in the middle east and Africa because there are terrorists there who need to be stopped, but it turns out “terrorism” is just a meaningless label that means whatever the empire needs it to mean at a given time and place.
Iran’s IRGC is labeled a terrorist group because the Iranian military is not aligned with the US empire. Israel’s IDF is not labeled a terrorist group despite its constant use of violence upon civilian populations in order to advance political goals. Palestine Action is labeled a terrorist group because it opposes the empire’s genocidal atrocities. Al Qaeda in Syria is no longer a terrorist group because it’s making nice with Israel and doing what the empire wants.
“Terrorist” just means “anyone who inconveniences the empire in any way.” It really is that simple.
_________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my mailing list, social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
The post Imperial Hypocrisy About “Terrorism” Hits Its Most Absurd Point Yet appeared first on LewRockwell.
Of Micronations and Coincidences
A New Approach for Elon Musk?
Considering the reality that power is an addiction for those feeding at the trough of government might and money, it was probably inevitable that Elon Musk’s crusade to root waste out of the American government would stall and prove unable to surmount the high barrier of congressional approval. Musk’s meltdown on social media over the failure of the United States Congress to codify his DOGE cuts into law was a popcorn-worthy entertainment event, but in terms of substance to adapt and pursue a new course to address America’s problems, its been something of a nothingburger. Insults, insinuations, and clever phrases do not change policy or direction of a country. Musk apparently believes that through these actions he will help stir up popular pressure on Congress to get the DOGE cuts through. However there are powers at play far more entrenched in the swamps of DC than he is. These are better positioned to ensure that those cuts never happen, even if it means the collapse of the imperialist system. To put it simply, Musk is outclassed in this battle on enemy ground. He caused some significant damage to the structures of the imperialists’ power (i.e.: the shuttering of USAID and certain other agencies), but long-term success was never an achievable outcome against entrenched opposition such as what he encountered.
With he and Donald Trump apparently parting ways, the question now arises as to what is next for Musk. The majority of his ideas to date regarding recovery from this setback has revolved around founding a new political party, but he is likely to quickly discover as the late Ross Perot did that that is easier said than done. Furthermore, though many people in America appreciate his work with DOGE, there are still significant concerns about certain other beliefs and projects which Musk has been dabbling in, such as Neuralink and other technocratic projects. These concerns are significant obstacles to getting general support across America for any broader agenda he might wish to accomplish.
There is another way for Musk to try and experiment more with his ideas. It is a route laden with risk and demanding a certain type of attention to detail which only control freaks could be expected to have. However Musk has often been described as thriving on taking risks. In addition, there are aspects to his personality which can be considered to be indicators of a control freak mentality which, some argue, has played a key role in his success to date. With this being the case, the scenario now about to be proposed may not be as far-fetched as some think.
This route would resolve many of the loose ends lying around in the aftermath of Musk’s departure from the Trump administration. It would bring resolution for Musk himself, and for the people who respect his intelligence, but also want his more controversial ideas contained to an extent for now until more research has been done. This route would call for Musk to withdraw to his recently incorporated little town of Starbase on the border of Texas and Mexico, where he has headquartered his space exploration company SpaceX. Once there he should build up infrastructure and make preparations for Starbase to become the North American continent’s first true example of what in Europe is called a “microstate.”
The term “microstate” (or “micronation” as the more accurate term) is a relatively recent addition to the political lexicon, meant to give a grouping label to those independent nations whose territory encompasses a very small plot of land. In Europe this would apply to countries such as Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City. Their small size enables the leaders to more easily communicate with the population and more quickly recognize problems when they arise. They are also easier to manage and keep functioning as opposed to over-large nations where bureaucracy and corruption eventually undermine the country’s political and economic foundations, bringing it’s existence to an end. Though they may have some limitations economically (i.e.: not very much farmland or natural resources), currently existing micronations have all managed to find their own ways to develop themselves economically and so keep the country functioning. These countries are a real life contradiction to the Elitist narrative that only large countries are viable politically. Their example provides a blueprint for how Musk should proceed into a future where the old political systems are disintegrating.
Using his SpaceX venture along with trade as the main economic foundation, Elon Musk should put pieces in place to declare the Independence of Starbase in the near-future. He can establish himself as the figurehead “Grand Duke” while allowing the citizens to run their own governance for the most part. He should then open Starbase for a period to welcome in all those who believe in his ventures and experiments who are also willing to become part of Musk’s new nation to help with developing these ideas. With this established, Musk will have carved out his own niche politically both for himself and his supporters. They can pursue their dreams and ideas without infringing or being infringed upon by other interests within the larger landmass of North America.
The viability of this independence venture would be helped by the fact that Starbase is strategically located where the Rio Grande river meets the ocean along the border of Texas and Mexico. With strong secession movements existing in both Texas and the northern provinces of Mexico, Starbase would be politically free to chart it’s own path regardless of what direction the independence efforts in the neighboring areas take. It can also offer friendship and business opportunities to both of it’s neighbors to use the Starbase facilities for space exploration ventures, which will likely be growing in importance and intensity through the twenty-first century. This would give Starbase the business it would need to keep it’s citizens thriving economically. Agreements respecting sovereignty, while providing for common self-defense help in the event of aggression from other powers, could also be brought about with these same neighbors. These would help ensure Starbase retains it’s independence while not being isolated either.
Will Elon Musk seriously consider this approach? It is hard to say at this point. However, as the man has proven himself very unpredictable in terms of direction since he first appeared on the public stage, it is fair to say that with him any direction is possible. Hopefully he is far-seeing enough to eventually recognize what many already have: namely that the Imperial Empire of DC is crumbling, and the original governing structures are beyond saving. Once he realizes that, this option may suddenly become a very viable one in his mind. An added benefit of him recognizing and pursuing this option would be that other potential micronations, such as Liberland in the Balkans, might finally be given the more serious treatment they deserve on the world stage.
Palantir and the L.A. Riots – Coincidence?Some weeks ago a “noticing” movement began to arise with respect to certain things unfolding in Trump World. First, attention was brought to the fact that Donald Trump had signed an executive order back in March directing that federal government agencies should seek to more readily share data with each other. This is a practice which had been discouraged in the past. There are real fears that a centralized database would make it easier for the federal government to find ways to persecute it’s citizens for exercising their rights if the government was opposed to certain viewpoints held by the individuals in question. Furthermore, it was revealed that the major technology company that was being tasked with centralizing this data was “Palantir”, a company specializing in surveillance technology, and owned by a Silicon Valley group including controversial tech oligarchs Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. This development alarmed many within MAGA world. It also raised serious questions as to what was really going on behind the scenes in the Trump administration by many who had supported and voted for Trump in the recent election. Though other members of the Palantir board attempted to reassure the public that the program was not nefarious or unusual, their responses still left many questions unanswered. These reassurance attempts were also largely unconvincing to those understanding the truth that the problem lies in the existence of the surveillance system itself, not in who is running it.
On the heels of this revelation, an overlooked provision which had been slipped into Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” came to more intense public notice. The provision banned all state governments in America from regulating AI for a decade, placed all control of AI integration in the federal government thus centralizing AI surveillance, and made provisions for AI to be integrated into certain federal agencies. With the Palantir surveillance model based in AI, many quickly realized that the states were being banned from taking steps against the unfolding of the centralized surveillance state. Faced with this revelation, some leading grassroots figures, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, quickly came out and condemned the ban, with Greene stating emphatically that she would oppose the bill specifically because of this provision. Leadership in the United States Senate attempted to assuage the fears raised by replacing the outright ban with a financial penalty for any state seeking to regulate AI. However, such half-hearted correction measures do not cut it with the public any longer after what was revealed thanks to the government’s COVID response.
With opposition growing to this implementation of a new stage of the surveillance state, especially within the MAGA constituency, it was apparent something drastic was going to be needed to undercut the opposition and get it through. Then suddenly, as if out of nowhere, riots abruptly erupted in Los Angeles surrounding Trump’s immigration agenda, taking the spotlight off the surveillance question and forcing law and order issues back into the forefront of the public’s attention. The riots have only intensified as the Trump administration has sent military force in to control the situation. Fears are now growing that the riots could spread across the country. Protests in San Francisco against Trump’s immigration agenda have turned violent and other cities across the country are also seeing growing protests which have the potential to turn violent.
A key technique for any advocates of centralizing government power is to use the power of emotions to overwhelm the truth of logic. That alone should make this sudden turn of events suspicious for those who believe in freedom. Fear is a key tool in the arsenal of those who push for government to assert more power, and seeing violence explode in the middle of an effort to combat a serious expansion of the surveillance state should make everyone very concerned. While some things can indeed be coincidences, America has reached a point where, as commissioner Jim Gordon told detective John Blake in The Dark Knight Rises: “You’re not allowed to believe in coincidence any more.”
Sources:
Will Secession Be the Real Winner in November?
This article was originally published on The State of Division.
The post Of Micronations and Coincidences appeared first on LewRockwell.
War in the Middle East, The Rothschilds
On about 20 September 2001, just ten days after the destruction of the World Trade Centre buildings on 9/11, recently retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark was visiting the Pentagon for meetings with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz when he was assailed by another General whom he had formerly commanded.
This General advised General Clark that the US was going to attack seven countries in five years.
A few weeks later, a similar meeting between the same officers led General Clark to be confidentially shown a memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office earlier that day.
Handing Clark the memo, the officer reported
‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ Watch ‘US Plans for the Middle East’.
Video: Plans for the Middle East. US Army General Wesley Clark
Video: This Version of the Video by Hamza dated 2016, 02 24 differs from that initial version released by Democracy Now. It documents the 7 countries.
As history now documents, with the notable exception of the last country on this list – Iran – each of these countries (together with Afghanistan and Palestine) has been destroyed, to a greater or lesser extent, by military violence inflicted by the United States, often together with its NATO and/or other allies, and/or Israel. Needless to say, there has been zero accountability for these gross violations of international law.
Why did the United States want to ‘take out 7 countries’?
Why does the United States (and Israel) still want to ‘take out’ Iran?
Understanding Conflict
When tackling conflict at this level, it is imperative to understand the ‘conflict configuration’ as a preliminary step in addressing key elements of the conflict. This understanding will require research, listening to those involved parties who are accessible and keeping an open mind to third-party sources.
After all, if one does not understand the conflict – the primary and secondary parties to it (which might include ‘invisible’ parties driving conflicts from the background), the key and subsidiary issues at stake, the importance (intellectually, behaviorally, materially) of each of these issues to the various parties to the conflict, as well as why these issues are important – it is not really possible for a genuine resolution of the conflict (one in which each party to the conflict feels satisfied with the outcome so that it will stand over time) to be achieved.
But there is a deeper dimension to conflict that is routinely overlooked: The ‘emotional profile’ of the key parties. At its most extreme, this includes the sanity, or otherwise, of the conflicting parties, including those parties operating from the background. For one explanation that highlights the critical importance of emotions to conflict, see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.
I emphasize the emotional component of conflict not only because it is central but because it makes it easier to perceive that if one or more parties to the conflict is emotionally damaged in one way or another (or even insane), then resolution of the conflict might require more than the processes ordinarily employed.
Conflict in West Asia
So I want to start ‘unpacking’ the conflict that has recently flared when Israel attacked Iran on 13 June 2025 – see ‘Israel Attacks Iran’ – followed by the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities on 22 June – see ‘Trump: We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, and now, “peace”’ – and the immediately subsequent ceasefire agreement. See ‘Iran confirms ceasefire with Israel’.
Before proceeding, I want to emphasize that there are far more elements to this conflict than can be ‘unpacked’ in this one article.
And to simply note that both the Israeli attack on Iran and the US attack on Iran were illegal under international law.
But, as with the previous military assaults on countries in West Asia and North Africa in the 21st century, when international law has been violated, there have been no meaningful legal repercussions for these transgressions. Nor will there be.
There is no mystery about why this is the case even if many analysts considering these conflicts, significant numbers of ‘ordinary’ people and even some national leaders believe it should happen. To understand why, it is only necessary to understand how the world works. Without that understanding, any number of delusions will spread easily, and be accelerated by government and corporate media, throughout concerned communities. And vast amounts of effort will be wasted on initiatives in relation to the conflict that can go nowhere.
So How Does the World Work?
As I have explained many times previously, all major political and economic structures and processes were created by the Global Elite over past centuries using their extensive network of partners, fronts, agents and employees, including those deeply embedded in what many refer to as the ‘Deep State’: the key intelligence, bureaucratic, military, technocratic and lobbyist personnel who persist in countries independently of the (elected or otherwise) government of the day and the electoral cycle. Notably, a great deal of control is exercised through the banking system that functions internationally and within each country. You can read one account of this in Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’
The central figures in this Global Elite are the members of the Rothschild family who have operated at the centre of this Elite since the late 18th century and exercise staggering control over many key aspects of the global economy, starting with banking, energy, weapons, mining, infrastructure (including railways), media and biotechnology.
Their estimated wealth exceeds $US100 trillion, dwarfing those ‘fortunes’ held by those ‘wealthy individuals’ – such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk – misleadingly promoted as the ‘wealthiest’ by corporate media. See Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf pp. 487-8.
Since the beginning of their reign, the Rothschilds have acquired a vast global network of income-producing assets by investing, wisely and often illegally, in a phenomenal variety and number of ventures, usually leaving another name prominently on display of any newly acquired asset, including those acquired or partly acquired as a result of saving a corporation from bankruptcy. In this way, their ownership and control is concealed so that, for example, other prominent families who are known to be excessively wealthy, such as the Morgans and Rockefellers, are fronts for the Rothschilds but not widely recognized as such.
See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War p.222. and
As noted above, two industries that the Rothschilds dominate are banking and the weapons industry.
And it is well-documented that the Rothschilds have helped finance both sides of most wars since the Napoleonic wars in the early 19th century. In these circumstances, the Rothschilds profit from weapons sales to most or all parties to all wars as well as the loans to buy the weapons and the loans to pay for reconstruction post-war. Again, you can read an account of this in Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’
Thus, as Niall Ferguson, an official biographer of the Rothschilds, has noted: by the late 19th century, direct Rothschild investment in major ‘armaments companies’ (now better known as weapons corporations) and related industries was substantial. He candidly noted ‘If late-nineteenth-century imperialism had its “military-industrial complex” the Rothschilds were unquestionably part of it.’ See The House of Rothschild – Volume 2 – The World’s Banker, 1849-1998, p. 579.
Beyond this, of course, effective Rothschild control of key global institutions – including the City of London, the Bank for International Settlements, the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve – and many critical industries, not to mention most national governments, was already giving it enormous power to reshape world order to suit its purposes before the advent of World War II. Consider the United States.
In his exceptionally detailed investigation into three major historical events of the C20th – the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the rise of Hitler – Professor Antony Sutton identified the seat of political power in the United States not as the US Constitution authorized but ‘the financial establishment in New York: the private international bankers, more specifically the financial houses of J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, and in earlier days (before amalgamation of their Manhattan Bank with the former Chase Bank), the Warburgs.’
‘For most of the twentieth century the Federal Reserve System, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (which is outside the control of Congress, unaudited and uncontrolled, with the power to print money and create credit at will), has exercised a virtual monopoly over the direction of the American economy. In foreign affairs the Council on Foreign Relations, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessmen, and politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, a power center that unilaterally determines U.S. foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged – and obviously subversive – foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits, if you will), for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families.’ See Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, pp.125-126.
Of course, control of national governments and key national institutions by powerful if obscured actors has long been the case and extends far beyond the United States as explained by preeminent historian Professor Carroll Quigley in his classic work published in 1966. See Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. pp.5-6.
‘[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations…
‘It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called ‘international’ or ‘merchant’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.’
The Present
If we jump to the present, analyst Paul Craig Roberts makes an observation and poses a fundamental question:
‘Think about America’s waste of resources and prestige during the first quarter of the 21st century. Trillions of dollars spent destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Somalia with zero gain. No one except military/security war profits got anything from these wars. There was no terrorist threat. Washington brought no one democracy, only destruction.
‘Think about the destruction Washington brought to entire countries for no purpose than Israel’s absurd idea of a Greater Israel. The millions of dead, permanently maimed, and dislocated people, many of whom have located in Europe and the US burdening those taxpayers with their upkeep. WHO BENEFITTED??’ See ‘President Trump’s Plan for the Middle East’.
‘Who benefitted?’ is indeed the question. As Roberts notes, it wasn’t the USA or its people. And it wasn’t the people of other countries, including those in Israel or NATO countries, either. And it certainly wasn’t the people in the countries destroyed.
So clearly it is time to shift the focus from those apparently driving this conflict – such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, who have much to gain by appearing to drive it – to those parties who are actually driving it. This can done simply by asking: ‘Have Netanyahu and Trump benefitted, personally, from the joint Israeli-US attack on Iran?’
In the case of Netanyahu, and despite his well-documented corruption, he has been a faithful servant of the Zionist elite for decades routinely acting to implement their program throughout West Asia. And faithful servants, chosen for their role, are defended, whatever their ills.
As one article in the Jerusalem Post acknowledged, Miriam Adelson ‘and her late husband Sheldon were viewed as kingmakers, puppeteers, or just another set of billionaires trying to shape Israeli politics in their image. Their immense wealth, their influence over both Israel and the US, and – perhaps most of all – their endless support for Benjamin Netanyahu made them divisive figures’. They ‘pour[ed] hundreds of millions into Netanyahu’s political survival…. It turns out that when you have Miriam Adelson’s resources and access, you don’t just influence policy – you rewrite it.’ See ‘Dr. Miriam Adelson, the modern-day Rothschild Israelis have finally recognized’.
And what of Trump? Is he just someone’s puppet too?
In April 1990 ‘Trump made a bold bet on Atlantic City when he opened a third casino there – the colossal Taj Mahal…. Even riskier: He financed the project with $675 million in junk bonds at a 14% interest rate. Within months Trump was struggling to make the massive bond payments as Atlantic City floundered.’
Consistent with a business tactic they have employed for more than 200 years, through an agent (Wilbur Ross) the Rothschilds offered Trump ‘a prepackaged bankruptcy deal: Trump would give up 50% of his stake in the Taj but would receive better debt terms and would remain in control.’ As a result, ‘The Donald was back in business: He ultimately made similar deals for his other troubled properties.’ See ‘Getting Donald Out Of Debt: The 25-Year-Old Ties That Bind Trump and Wilbur Ross’.
As with all such deals with the Rothschilds, Trump continues to pay off his ‘forever debt’. These days, one way he does that is by deploying the power of his presidential position to serve their divergent ends as part of the payback. Thus, for example, while deceiving the Iranian leadership that he was negotiating with them, the subsequent evidence shows that Trump was finalising plans to attack Iran’s three nuclear sites – and precipitate events leading to regime change – through an intense bombing campaign. See ‘The Hidden Agenda behind Trump’s Attack on Iran’.
Moreover, as discussed by Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Drago Bosnic, certain evidence points to the notion that this strike was ‘political theatre’.
This evidence includes the facts that it would have taken months, at least, to plan and organize the attack and, more importantly, the damage from radiation release, if the attack had been fully successful, would have been more catastrophic than what happened following the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Watch ‘“Political Theater”: Trump’s Attack against Iran’.
This suggests that the real motive was, indeed, regime change. So what would have been the advantage of precipitating regime change in Iran?
As noted above, any consideration of Rothschild history must lead to an awareness that they precipitate wars to reshape world order where necessary and to capture control of resources, in whatever form these take. And its legacy of gaining control of such resources – including mineral resources such as oil and gas, gold, diamonds, rubies…. depending on the context – is well documented.
Thus, just as the war to expel the Palestinians from Gaza will, among other opportunities, open access for the Rothschilds to profit enormously by exploiting the gigantic Leviathan maritime natural gas resources in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza – see ‘The Geopolitics of Elite Insanity, Part 2: Creating Eretz Yisrael to Reshape World Order’ – regime change in Iran would open the possibility of the Rothschilds re-establishing their key role in the ownership and exploitation of oil and gas in Iran, which they lost following the Iranian revolution in 1979 when the assets of all foreign oil companies operating in Iran were seized. See ‘Iran’s Oil Nationalization: A Triumph Over Western Imperialism’.
It would also force open the possibility of Iran surrendering some or total control of the Central Bank of Iran which is not a member of the Rothschild-controlled Bank for International Settlements.
So who benefits from this war (given the long list of people who do not)? As has been the case for the past 200 years, the Rothschilds (and other Elite families) certainly do. And so do their agents beginning, in this case, with Netanyahu and Trump.
And that is the reason why this war is not over and it might go nuclear. Several commentators – including Mike Whitney and Scott Ritter – have noted this.
See:
‘Here’s Proof That Israel Lost the War (and signs that the conflict is about to resume)’ and
‘Will Bibi Ask Trump to Nuke Iran? Ritter Says “Yes”’.
Resisting War
For more than 100 years, millions of people have joined antiwar groups of various kinds. And for more than 100 years, some members of some of these groups have engaged in a range of activities to demonstrate their opposition to war, either as an institution or in a particular context.
However, the antiwar movement has been singularly ineffective in its impact in ending war as an institution. It has no comprehensive analysis of the institution of war (and no comprehensive analysis of violence, of which war is just one subset) nor, even within the confines of its various limited analyses (such as the feminist and socialist critiques), a comprehensive strategy to end war. For a fuller critique of the antiwar movement and an explanation of what is necessary to end war, see ‘Rage Against the War Machine: What Rage?’ If you want to understand the origin of violence which generates a vast range of outcomes, including war, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
Similarly, the antiwar movement has no shared critique of any particular war that is remotely adequate and no strategy to end any particular war including the ones in West Asia where a number – some ‘hot’, some ‘cold’ – are being fought at the moment.
Thus, devoid of an accurate understanding of the configuration of any war, including this war, it is not possible for the conflict underlying it to be resolved. And efforts to end it will be misdirected to actions that are strategically useless, such as protest demonstrations or public statements directed at Elite agents, in this case, governments or international organizations including the United Nations. See ‘International Days of Action Against War on Iran’ and ‘Urgent Appeal for Action Regarding Israeli Regime’s Unlawful Military Aggression Against Iran’.
In any case, of course, no state or group of states, or their international organizations, can or will attempt to hold the Rothschilds and other Elite families to account. These families operate beyond the rule of law and beyond constraint of any kind.
Thus, if we are to have any chance of ending this war or war itself, those of us who identify as ‘ordinary’ must take on these Elite actors and their agents ourselves.
And we can do this effectively if we undertake the challenge using sound strategy. You can read a list of strategic goals for ending wars by scrolling down this page to ‘Strategic goals that would be appropriate in a nonviolent struggle to end war’ and access the remaining details of a comprehensive strategy for doing so elsewhere on this website.
The power to end this war and all war is in our hands. Will we use it?
The original source of this article is Global Research.
The post War in the Middle East, The Rothschilds appeared first on LewRockwell.
Netanyahu and Trump Host Libertarian Dinner!
Who knew corrupt mass murderer Bibi Netanyahu is actually a closet libertarian? Peace must soon follow, as the first and second greatest nations of the planet, Israel and the US, break bread on a theme of peace and prosperity, extolling the virtues of self-determination for all people.
Oh to be a Fight Club waiter at Monday’s night White House dinner, as the leaders and staffs of the two most fight-loving countries that have ever existed dine at US taxpayer’s expense, while ditching the US taxpayer’s will.
The food is probably good, but the relationship is toxic.
Trump, Biden-like and taking the Biden administration’s lead, keeps sending billions to Israel to decimate, depopulate and subsume Gaza, in pursuit of the Zionist lebensraum. It is Donald Trump’s genocide now.
Principles like “do not steal” land, life, or liberty are noticeably absent, but if you read the papers, Trump and Bibi have a plan for Gaza that includes – or more likely solely consists of – “freedom” to “exit.” Trump and Bibi agree Gaza should not be a prison, despite being operated as one by the occupation power for decades, with a level of dehumanization that defines “mowing the grass” as a routine op to keep the numbers of Gazans down.
But Bibi was full of love for liberty, and respect for world peace – he even brought to Mr Trump a letter where he nominated the Orange Man for the Nobel Peace Prize. Bibi explained, “He’s forging peace, as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other….[I’m] nominating you for the Peace Prize, which is well deserved, and you should get it.”
Given endless war, endless state deceit, meshed collusion in war by the billionaire classes on all sides for fun and profit, what can proponents of liberty take away from this dinner?
I think there are several key points we can work with.
First, for the state, every day is opposite day. Israel, opportunistically founded as a political response to the extremities of Naziism in World War II, has transformed itself into the ideal Nazi nation. As for the United States, the land of liberty has become a new kind of prison. Citizen-prisoners are subsidized through fiat, their own and the state’s, and produce in the way the old Soviet Union produced, as the state bureaucracy demands and designs for payment in company scrip – mostly for the war and security state.
Second, our leaders, as Ambassador Chas Freeman observes in the linked video above, are simply delusional. To be delusional is to believe things that are not true. It’s a broad brush, as easily applied to our own family members and neighbors as to our political leaders. But in Israel, and in the United States, the respective populations have been continuously instructed, through state media narratives, school and university systems, and their own mainstream political parties, to believe many things that are not true. Naturally, American and Israeli history are favorably airbrushed, with major uncomfortable actions and events glossed over or ignored. Yet, our understanding of history can be made more accurate, upon discovery. This is why the question “What about Building 7” or calls to “Remember the USS Liberty” are so powerful – they engage the individual to explore the global library. But in terms of logic, math, economics, ethics and the analysis of history, we the people in the Second and First most important countries of the world are taught wrong, on purpose.
Of course, Americans should be free to leave the public schools without facing the wrath of the truant officer. But Donald Trump himself, educated in a private school over 65 years ago, was taught the same garbage, and the same lack of intellectual critique, analysis, and exploration. Trump states that his B-2 assault on three non-facilities in Iran with bunker busters halfway around the world is a Truman-esque feat, and should be lauded exactly as we have been taught to laud Truman’s experimental and unnecessary dropping of atomic bombs of two non-military cities in Japan, after the Japanese Army had already been defeated.
To be honest, Hiroshima was chosen as the target in 1945 because of the expected ability to study the resultant damage, based on a mountain range that would focus the explosion. Nagasaki was an add-on to the original target list of five locations, as a replacement for Kyoto. This occurred because Harold Stimson, a predecessor to Pete Hegseth, had taken his honeymoon in Kyoto, and apparently had pleasant memories of the city. It is, and was then, well understood that the two recipients of Fat Man and Little Boy were less military targets than civilian, and of the list of original target cities, the ones chosen contained the more civilians and less military industrial capability. Eisenhower was right in 1960, in warning of the integrated industrial, scientific, and academic powers that influence the American way of war, and promote American intolerance of peace.
Third, the US government and its “friends” constitute a direct and immediate threat to American citizens. Many on the left and right are concerned that the American version of Bibi’s “free to leave” policy for “those who are not welcome here” or those “here illegally” will be applied, as it is today in “greater” Israel, to people who have every right to be where they are. Many on the left and right are sensing, and seeing, how quickly and easily the state can erect a full array of concentration camps, institute and fund a police state, and formally invalidate the First and Fourth Amendments.
Second Amendment advocates, and observers of the United States as a haven for personal arms and ammunition, correctly assume that a foreign army would be unable to conventionally conquer the US, or to effectively occupy it after a nuclear exchange. The US may, like Afghanistan, be a place where great powers go to die. I’ll admit this is a comforting thought. But if our own government, under any autopen in the Executive Suite, chose to reduce our country to ashes, it most certainly has home field advantage. As we speak, much of the southern border is already under martial law lite. This is accomplished through a “good cause” edict, via a vast network of US military bases, training areas, and federal/state land. As of last year, the state owned 40% of total US territory, land where the Constitution is already suspended, land immediately available to a state at war. The population of the US is concentrated on the east and west coast urban centers, and procedures to lock down cities and national trade and commerce, church and local politics are well established. Eminent Constitutionalist John Whitehead explains how war fuels the surveillance state. We must ask, to what end? I think we already know, and it isn’t to keep us healthy and free to leave.
Thus, we observe a state dinner hosted by country #2 for country #1, where, as just like in the T-Bone Cafe, there is only one question, “What don’t you want.” From the looks on the faces at the dinner, they are trying to decide if they don’t want the ultra-homogenized imitation liberty, or they don’t want yesterday’s political fellatio. Bless their hearts.
The post Netanyahu and Trump Host Libertarian Dinner! appeared first on LewRockwell.
What’s Old Is New
In 2017, when we were still attending the local Novus Ordo parish Mass (and about a year and a half before we discovered the Latin Mass), I wrote a blog post where I was wrestling with the ephemeral, lamenting planned obsolescence, and worrying about the faith of my young children in withstanding the cultural zeitgeist of secularism. There I wrote:
In many ways I fear the faith I am caring for, trying so carefully to preserve, maintaining its integrity and instilling the rituals and remembrances in our family life as my children are young, will be rejected when they come of age. “Sorry dad,” they will say, “we don’t want your stuff.” An old missal, a rosary polished from years of fingering—they’ll become like cherry armoires and cast-iron cookware: of no perceived use to them.
Everybody has their preferred style, but there is something to be said for a quality handmade chair, an old stone church, a set of steel hand tools because it carries with it a memory, a legacy, and a history. Non-denominationalism is the IKEA of worship and architecture today. It is modern, sleek, relevant, and sterile. Its roots do not run deep, the foundation like that of a vinyl-clad townhouse.
In the secular arena, modern progressives destroy everything they touch. They tear down with no real cohesive or thought-out plan of how to rebuild. They tear down the family and religion, statues and monuments, traditional sexual mores. They are impatient, and content to slap up temporary shanties until they can figure out what next thing comes next. Social change can’t happen fast enough. Out with the old, in with the new, until new becomes old and then off to the dump again.
But things get destroyed in the process. Timeless things, priceless things—immortal souls, traditional families, rituals and connections to our past and our ancestors and predecessors.
My prediction goes beyond furniture and housewares, beyond trends and tastes and kitchen renovations. When we hit the modern bottom, when the demons start to tip the scales and become too powerful, when the non-denominational particleboard gets wet and warped, when the trans-everything nonsense hits fever pitch…a few will start to pine for an ancient faith. They will go online to order and meetup; they will seek and they will not find (Jn 7:34) except in those pockets in which it has been preserved as the pearl of great price that it is, a soft glow of candles in stained glass windows in the darkness, shards of light reflecting off a gold monstrance in the sanctuary, the quiet ancient chant of plainsong beckoning behind thick solid wood doors. It will be exotic and intimidating, ethereal and forbidden, austere and arduous, foreign and yet completely familiar. The Faith of our fathers, the Faith handed down, the Faith communion that takes place in real time…it will be both old, and new.
What I didn’t realize then was we would be rounding the corner as a family a couple years later, finding a local pocket of those devoted to the usus antiquior. The rest, they say, is history—the 1962 Missal became our liturgical “docking station” where everything synched. We eventually began attending a diocesan Latin Mass every Sunday where we began to lay down roots. The hope was not that the Tridentine liturgy would be our salvation or the “silver bullet” that would guarantee the transmission of the Faith to our children as (eventual) adults; it simply seemed like a solid foundation, built on rock, that had stood the test of time for generations.
People attend the Latin Mass for a myriad of reasons. For some it may be ideological; for some, aesthetic. For many (like us), it recalibrates the needle of what it means to worship. We are not there to see friends (though we enjoy each other’s company outside the church after Mass). We are not there to “share a communal meal.” We are not there for entertainment or good preaching.
We enter into worship primarily as an act of sacrifice. In this, the “Mass of the Ages” expresses unequivocally its single-minded purpose. As Msgr. George Moorman states in The Latin Mass Explained, “Sacrifice answers the craving of human nature.” There is no ambiguity when one steps into a Latin Mass: this is Catholicism.
The post What’s Old Is New appeared first on LewRockwell.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/exr24_eu_en_2.gif)
Commenti recenti
2 giorni 16 ore fa
9 settimane 6 giorni fa
11 settimane 3 giorni fa
12 settimane 1 giorno fa
16 settimane 2 giorni fa
19 settimane 2 giorni fa
21 settimane 2 giorni fa
23 settimane 9 ore fa
28 settimane 2 giorni fa
28 settimane 6 giorni fa