Aggregatore di feed

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Joakim Book

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/mining-di-bitcoin-e-banane-islandesi)

In una sconsiderata strategia di marketing ecologico per il suo Paese, il primo ministro islandese, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, ha dichiarato al Financial Times a fine marzo che la sua isola nel mezzo dell'Atlantico dovrebbe usare la sua abbondante energia non per il mining di Bitcoin ma per... coltivare mais (!).

Elogiando la sovranità alimentare in un mondo costellato da crisi energetiche, catene di approvvigionamento sconquassate e guerre, ha ampliato il suo spunto di discussione sull'attualità affermando che “Bitcoin è un problema mondiale”, che “i data center in Islanda utilizzano una quota significativa della nostra energia verde” e che, secondo un nuovo piano energetico per il futuro, Bitcoin non ne avrebbe avuto alcun ruolo.

Dalle dichiarazioni della signora Jakobsdóttir possiamo imparare molto su commercio, energia, agricoltura, mining di Bitcoin e ostentazione politica, quindi approfondiamo.

Innanzitutto se non avete capito cosa fa Bitcoin, come le macchine per il mining (“ASIC”) proteggono la rete o perché è importante per il mondo, qualsiasi energia consumata dai suoi computer, dalle sue macchine per il mining o dai suoi wallet hardware vi sembrerà uno spreco. Ma questo non è il punto: le democrazie liberali occidentali non allocano l'elettricità in base ai casi d'uso che i loro attuali funzionari pubblici ritengono utili, ma lasciano che i singoli individui paghino per le necessità che loro ritengono preziose. Pensate a tutte quelle abbuffate di Netflix, ai videogiochi o alle decorazioni natalizie, che consumano tutte quantità di elettricità simili a quelle del mining globale di Bitcoin.

In secondo luogo l'elettricità totale utilizzata dai data center in Islanda (solo alcuni di essi fanno mining) è stata di 1.169 GWh nel 2021, circa il 6% del consumo totale del Paese, ovvero poco più del consumo di tutte le famiglie messe insieme. Tale consumo è completamente sminuito dall'elefante energetico nella stanza: l'industria dell'alluminio. Circa due terzi dell'elettricità nazionale (ovvero 12.454 GWh, ovvero 11 volte il consumo totale dei data center, ovvero circa il 20% del consumo energetico totale, quest'ultimo dato include anche il riscaldamento e la benzina) viene utilizzato per trasformare la bauxite importata in alluminio destinato all'esportazione. È un'attività piuttosto redditizia. Le tre fonderie di alluminio del Paese contribuiscono all'economia islandese quasi quanto il settore turistico, molto più noto e pubblicizzato.

È anche per questo che Daníel Jónsson, amministratore delegato di GreenBlocks, un'azienda di mining, ha aperto il suo editoriale sul quotidiano islandese Visir criticando la Jakobsdóttir con la proposta di una centrale idroelettrica in Etiopia. L'energia e l'elettricità inutilizzate sono una calamita per i miner di Bitcoin, poiché prendono l'elettricità che non può essere prontamente utilizzata per altri scopi e la trasformano in una delle risorse più liquide e trasferibili a livello mondiale.

Jónsson osserva che il principio “non è poi così diverso dal percorso intrapreso dall'Islanda negli anni '60, quando [gli islandesi] decisero di costruire centrali elettriche ed esportare elettricità [...] per l'industria dell'alluminio”. Sebbene gli islandesi abbiano molto da dire sugli impianti geotermici e sulle dighe fluviali, è innegabile che il popolo islandese viva bene anche grazie al successo dell'esportazione di elettricità.

Il mining di Bitcoin è solo un altro modo per fare la stessa cosa: trasformare l'energia intrappolata, con pochi usi alternativi, in qualcosa che il resto del mondo desidera avere.

In terzo luogo, il mais?! Davvero?! La mentalità da pianificazione centralizzata coinvolta qui è sorprendente. A 64 gradi nord in un paesaggio aspro con poche superfici pianeggianti o terreni coltivabili come invece negli infiniti campi di mais del Midwest, dove per otto mesi all'anno non cresce altro che ghiacciai e cumuli di neve, dove le risorse naturali più abbondanti sono pesci, cascate e calore geotermico, si vuole coltivare mais?

Certo, proprio come le stampanti di banconote infinite possono permettere a qualsiasi azienda, organizzazione o governo di sopravvivere, l'elettricità infinita può far accadere la maggior parte delle cose. Di conseguenza in Islanda si può coltivare di tutto, compresi i pomodori locali – che invadono i negozi di Reykjavík – e fichi, arance e banane – che crescono invece in una serra gestita da un'università a un'ora dalla città (a quanto pare in Islanda si coltivano banane dagli anni '50, anche se non sono mai diventate commercialmente redditizie poiché la scarsa luce solare, anche integrata con quella artificiale, fa maturare una pianta di banana in circa due anni rispetto ai pochi mesi necessari in Sud America o in Africa).

In quarto luogo il valore economico del commercio. Nel suo libro, The Myth of the Rational Voter, l'economista Bryan Caplan della George Mason University documenta come una delle differenze tra la popolazione e gli economisti sia il grado di esitazione nell'interagire con gli stranieri, in particolare per quanto riguarda il valore del commercio estero. Mentre gli economisti, alla lavagna, iniziano a blaterare di Ricardo o del vantaggio comparato, i cittadini comuni tendono a pensare a localismo, perdita di posti di lavoro e delocalizzazione.

Forse la popolazione di un Paese, affamata di banane, potrebbe essere meglio rifornita coltivandole utilizzando abbondante elettricità locale, anche se il clima e la scarsa insolazione invernale non sono adatti. Oppure si potrebbe ottenere frutta in quantità maggiore, più economica e di migliore qualità acquistando bauxite dall'estero, investendovi due terzi dell'elettricità nazionale, trasportando all'estero l'alluminio risultante e infine facendo tornare altre navi e aerei con banane e pomodori freschi.

I giornalisti del Financial Times hanno aggiunto con naturalezza che “l'Islanda produce la maggior parte dei prodotti animali che consuma, ma solo l'1% dei suoi cereali e il 43% delle sue verdure”, come se queste fossero statistiche in qualche modo rilevanti. Lo stesso si può dire di una città o di una famiglia (“[...] produce solo circa l'1% del suo consumo alimentare e il 5% delle sue verdure, in gran parte dal suo orto estivo”); non hanno alcun significato economico.

Prendiamo ad esempio New York City. Nonostante i numerosi orti comunitari e gli sforzi considerevoli compiuti negli ultimi anni dalle autorità per sostenere i prodotti locali in città, possiamo tranquillamente supporre che solo una miseria del cibo consumato ogni giorno a Manhattan venga coltivata lì. Nessuna persona sana di mente pensa che questo sia un problema. In economie integrate e monetarie con facile accesso ai trasporti e al commercio internazionale, queste cose non contano più.

Il sistema economico è controintuitivo in questo senso: ciò che a un osservatore superficiale può sembrare una follia assoluta, può avere perfettamente senso. È meglio coltivare le mele localmente o farsele spedire dalla Nuova Zelanda? L'Islanda dovrebbe coltivare banane, fichi e mais, o utilizzare l'energia per fornire circa il 2% dell'alluminio mondiale?

Nonostante la “disastrosa” carenza di produzione agricola dell'Islanda, il Paese è ben fornito di cereali e ortaggi tutto l'anno, proprio come agli abitanti di New York non mancano frutta e verdura fresche. L'idea risale ai dibattiti sulle Corn Laws del 1800 e, dopo la vittoria del libero scambio, la Britannia ha esplicitamente fatto affidamento sugli stranieri per il suo sostentamento. Un gran bell'affare.

Utilizzando calcoli economici e profitti/perdite derivanti dal sistema dei prezzi, possiamo trovare la risposta a queste domande: se un'azienda o un'attività realizza un profitto è la conferma che il prodotto è stato valutato positivamente dai consumatori rispetto a ciò che è stato impiegato per realizzarlo.

Ma forse possiamo fare entrambe le cose? Un computer ASIC è poco più di una rumorosa stufa dotata di alcuni processi di hashing, i quali convertono quasi tutta l'elettricità consumata in calore. Se i funzionari pubblici islandesi volessero coltivare più pomodori, banane, o mais utilizzando l'elettricità verde di cui la loro terra è così benedetta, potrebbero semplicemente piazzare qualche ASIC nelle loro serre.

Immaginate: potreste acquistare verdure islandesi coltivate localmente e proteggere la più grande rete monetaria digitale del mondo. Forse la coinbase guadagnata da miner Bitcoin potrebbe pagare uno staff di ricerca proprio su Bitcoin presso l'ufficio del Primo Ministro islandese.

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

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

Lew,

Gee, I wonder which foreign power Kash Patel wanted to protect by shutting down the probe by National Counterterrorism Chief Joe Kent? Tucker Carlson recently commended Kent as a good and decent man.

Daily Mail

 

The post FBI Shuts Down US Intel Probe into Foreign Intelligence Tie to Charlie Kirk Murder appeared first on LewRockwell.

Putin remains focussed on achieving a new Europe-wide security architecture, writes Alastair Crooke.

Trump’s attempt to build a ‘Budapest scenario’ (i.e. a Putin-Trump summit grounded on the earlier Alaska ‘understanding’) was unilaterally cancelled (by the U.S.) amid acrimony. Putin had initiated the 2.5 hr Monday call. It reportedly contained tough talking by Putin about the lack of U.S. preparation towards a political framework – both in respect to Ukraine, but crucially also in respect to Russia’s wider security needs.

However, when it was announced by the American side, Trump’s proposal had reverted (yet again) to the Keith Kellogg (the U.S. Ukraine Envoy) doctrine of a ‘frozen conflict’ on the existing Contact Line preceding any peace negotiations – not vice versa.

Trump must have known well before the Budapest talks were mooted that this Kellogg doctrine had been rejected, time after time, by Moscow. So why did he repeat the demand for it again? In any event, the Budapest summit scenario had to be cancelled after the pre-agreed ‘set-up’ call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Marco Rubio ran up against a wall. As Lavrov again insisted that a Kellogg-style ceasefire in place would not fly.

It seems that the U.S. Administration expected that its threats to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles amid toughening U.S. rhetoric of deep strikes into Russia would be pressure enough to have Putin agree a freeze in the here and now format, with all discussion of details and a wider solution postponed, sine die.

Russian military analysts reportedly told Putin that Trump’s threats were bluff — even if the Tomahawk supplies were made available, the quantity would be limited and would not inflict any tactical or strategic defeat on Russia.

The course of events implies that either Trump did not grasp this Russian ‘reality’ – despite two years of repetition that Russia would not budge on a ‘here and now freeze’. Or alternatively, that the ‘dark money’ interests came down hard on Trump, telling him that a real peace process with Russia was not allowed. So Trump cancelled the whole scenario, muttering to the media that a Budapest meeting would have been “a waste of time” — leaving his Administration (U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent) to announce new sanctions on Russia’s largest oil companies, accompanied by a call to allies to join with them.

Let us recall – the ‘Russian’ reality is that Putin would not want to repeat the mistake of 1918, when Russia signed the humiliating Brest-Litovsk peace, under pressure from Germany. Putin often repeats that it was precisely the pressures to ‘let’s just stop’ in 1918 that cost Russia its status as a major power, and lost it entire generations of Russians. The colossal effort of millions of people was exchanged for the humiliating Brest-Litovsk peace. Chaos and collapse followed.

Putin remains focussed on achieving a new Europe-wide security architecture, though Trump’s capriciousness and unseen constraints must put new calls by Putin or meetings into question. Putin is angry — many Russian ‘red lines’ have been crossed; escalation is coming – perhaps at an unprecedented level.

The Europeans, undaunted by the Belgrade meeting cancellation, are touting a ’new/old’ twelve-point plan that would rule out territorial concessions and would prescribe a ceasefire along the current front lines. The western Ruling Strata are making matters abundantly clear: Russia must be defeated. Escalation has already begun: New EU sanctions on Russian gas imports into the EU have been announced and overnight strikes on oil refineries in Hungary and Romania (the latter being a NATO state) were launched. Again, the message to EU states is clear: no backsliding. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk underlined on X the point: “All Russian targets in the EU are legitimate”. The EU is clearly willing to go to any length to make war on its own to compel adherence.

Given that the Kiev side finds it impossible to contemplate resiling from any part of its territory – whilst Russia retains the preponderance of hard force – it is hard to see how any negotiation is feasible at this time. Likely, Ukraine will be settled by a trial of strength. The EU urgency to its attempt to win Trump to its side likely reflects its fear of the accelerating and accumulating Russian military victories.

All this Russia turmoil is occurring as Bessent heads to Kuala Lumpur to challenge China’s response to the U.S.’ sudden extension (after holding apparently promising trade talks) of export controls to tech products imported by China. China riposted by promulgating rare earth controls in retaliation.

An angry Trump exploded – threatening China with 100% tariffs. The U.S. stock market, following a well-worn pattern, initially crashed, but Trump quickly posted an upbeat announcement in time for the opening of the ‘futures market’, and buyers piled in, with stocks hitting record highs. For Americans, all was well.

However, last Monday, Trump’s eulogistically positive language towards China – unexpectedly shot-up to volume ‘11’: “I think when we finish our meetings in South Korea [with Xi], China and I will have a really fair and really great trade deal together”, Trump said. He voiced hope that China would resume purchases of American soybeans after imports by Beijing plunged amid the tariff standoff. He also urged China “to stop with the fentanyl”, accusing the Chinese authorities of failing to curb exports of the synthetic opioid and its chemical precursors

And just to ensure that the stock market rocketed to yet a new record high, Trump added that he doesn’t think that ‘China wants to invade Taiwan’.

However, now that Moscow has effectively put a stop to the U.S. ‘Budapest’ scenario, the question is: Will Xi too decide that continuing with Trump capriciousness is worth the inevitable angst (the meeting in South Korea is unconfirmed at this point). And angst seems likely to soar.

Perhaps however, Trump’s shift to such excessively positive language towards China reflects something else: A shock development for Trump and the U.S. possibly?

The newly inaugurated Prime Minister of Japan, Sanae Takaishi, had widely been expected, on taking office, to deliver strong anti-China rhetoric; to strengthen the alliance with the U.S.; to boost Japan’s military power; and to contain Beijing.

Yet, the opposite happened.

In her first address to the nation, Takaishi said that she would not support the U.S. trade war against China, and would not become an instrument of U.S. economic pressure. She openly criticised Trump’s tariff policy, calling it ‘the most dangerous mistake of the 21stcentury’.

Reuters commented that her stance was wholly unexpected in Washington. A big shock. It emerged that since taking office, the new PM had held a series of meetings with the largest Japanese corporations who had conveyed a unified and urgent message to her: Simply – the Japanese economy would not survive another trade war.

Then, one week after taking office, she openly expressed support for China, executing the biggest foreign policy pivot since WW2. China was no longer the ‘enemy’.

A new era in Asia has arrived. Trump is in shock: He accused Takaishi of betraying the principles of free trade. CNN called it a ‘stab in the back’, by a close ally.

But worse was to come: Polls showed the PM enjoyed 60% support for her stance on Japanese economic independence – and more than 50% supported her position on China, too!

Bloomberg dropped a further bombshell: Takaishi has begun – in conjunction with China and South Korea – a strategic recalibration of Asia’s monetary architecture in response to Washington’s growing use of economic power as leverage. China, Japan, and South Korea are building a common currency area. The proposed trilateral swap would allow the three to settle trade, extend liquidity, and manage crises through their own currencies – entirely independently from the West.

Were these projects to mature, it would chip away at the scaffolding of dollar primacy by removing 15% of global trading from the dollar sphere, and would likely see the entire existing (pro-western) Asian balance of power collapse.

It goes further: Takaishi’s vision would mesh with the SCO/BRICS unfolding of its digital clearing system across all of Central Asia. Yet Trump wants the BRICS dismantled, together with any other threats to U.S. dollar hegemony. Expect escalation – more threats of tariffs.

Should China not respond sufficiently enthusiastically to the Trump charm offensive, then matters likely will escalate in tandem with escalations versus Russia (Venezuela and possibly Iran). Trump has already threatened Japan with sanctions, though this seems likely only to push Japan closer to China where the predominance of Japan’s trading interests now lies. A volatile period lies ahead, likely punctuated by violent oscillations in financial markets.

Russia and China remain closely aligned on geo-political issues – and both may have other reasons to keep talking with Trump (if only to avoid inadvertently triggering a financial crisis in the West for which they will be blamed), or for military de-confliction purposes. But it seems that more than for these states alone, the Trump leverage tactics are backfiring – whilst the debt and credit crisis in the U.S. grows ever more acute.

Any of these geo-political trysts could ignite into flames. Ukraine-Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan-India and of course Gaza and West Bank, are just some of the hotspots. The situation is brittle; Trump exists beyond strategic analysis, and the Europeans lack any real leadership and are embarked internally on war psychosis.

As the old Viennese saying has it: “In Vienna, the situation is desperate – but not serious” (i.e. have no expectation anyone in the West will react to it with any modicum of sobriety).

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

The post The World Financial and Geo-Political Framework at a Time of Imminent Disorder appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post The Rise of the Thielverse & the Surveillance State appeared first on LewRockwell.

“But these weren’t the kind of monsters that had tentacles and rotting skin, the kind a seven-year-old might be able to wrap his mind around—they were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.”—Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

Monsters don’t always come wrapped in the trappings of horror or myth.

Most often, monsters in the real world look like ordinary people. They walk among us. They smile for the cameras. They promise protection and prosperity even as they feed on fear and obedience.

All is not as it seems.

We are living in two worlds.

There’s the world we’re shown—the bright, propaganda-driven illusion manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors—and the world we actually inhabit, where economic inequality widens, real agendas are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak, and “freedom” is rationed out in controlled, legalistic doses by militarized police and federal agents.

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

Tune out the distractions and diversions, and you run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: monsters with human faces walk among us.

Many of them work for the U.S. government.

Through its power grabs, brutality, greed, corruption, and tyranny, the government has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to fight—terrorism, torture, disease, drug trafficking, trafficking of persons, violence, theft, even scientific experimentations that treat humans as test subjects.

With every passing day, it becomes painfully evident that the American Police State has developed its own monstrous alter ego: the Vampire State.

Like its legendary namesake, it survives by draining the lifeblood of the nation—the sweat, money, labor, privacy, and freedoms of “We the People.”

One tax, one law, one war, one surveillance program at a time, it takes what it needs and bleeds us dry.

As in every great horror story, the most terrifying monsters are the ones that look familiar. Of all the gothic figures, Bram Stoker’s vampire—a cold, calculating predator bent on conquest—may be the closest to the waking nightmare unfolding before us.

Like its mythic counterpart, the Vampire State seduces its victims with promises of safety, comfort, and national greatness. Once trust is secured and access granted, it feeds slowly and methodically—just enough to keep the populace docile, but never enough to rouse them from their trance.

Lulled by propaganda and partisan loyalty, the people become what Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, feared most: a zombie-fied mob, mindless to the very monster that feeds on them.

Once it latches on, the Vampire State’s tyrannical hunger only grows.

The Vampire State feeds on fear. Fear is the oxygen of tyranny. Every crisis—real or manufactured—fuels the quest for more power. Serling showed how quickly panic corrodes a community in The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, where neighbors, convinced that danger lurks next door, transform into a violent mob and turn on each other. Our headlines change—drug wars and ICE raids, “domestic extremists” and pandemics, foreign hit lists and necessary military strikes—but the script remains the same: politicians play savior, and a browbeaten populace surrenders their rights for the illusion of safety.

Fear, however, is only the beginning. Once fear takes hold, the next step is to turn people against one another. Demagogues know well how to do this.

The Vampire State feeds on division. In He’s Alive, Serling’s young fanatic learns the oldest trick in the book: “The people will follow you if you give them something to hate.” The American Police State has perfected that art—pitting citizen against immigrant, left against right, protester against police, rich against poor—because a divided nation is far easier to control.

Division, in turn, breeds submission. Once a society is at war with itself, obedience becomes the only refuge.

The Vampire State feeds on obedience. In Serling’s The Obsolete Man, a religious librarian in an atheist society where books are destroyed is condemned to death for obsolescence. The real crime was individuality. Today, bureaucracies demand the same submission—teachers disciplined for dissent, journalists axed for challenging the prevailing order, citizens detained under executive orders for speech deemed “dangerous.” Resistance is drained until only compliance remains.

Obedience, however, is never enough. Tyranny requires endless sustenance—material, financial, and human.

The Vampire State feeds on wealth. No predator survives without a steady source of sustenance, and the state’s preferred meal is the taxpayer. Endless wars, bloated budgets, emergency powers and corporate concessions keep the machine humming. As in Judgment Night and The Purple Testament, the war engine consumes bodies and earnings while sanctioning the cost as “patriotism.” Trillions get funneled to defense contractors and prison profiteers even as the public is told is “no money” for justice, infrastructure, welfare, or the basic maintenance of a free society.

Yet even that cannot satisfy a regime that wants total control. To control completely, it must know everything about those in its power.

The Vampire State feeds on privacy. A true predator must know its prey. The predatory state now drinks deeply from the digital lifeblood of the nation—every call logged, every movement tracked, every purchase recorded. Palantir-powered surveillance, biometric checkpoints, facial recognition databases: this is Serling’s cautionary universe updated for the algorithmic age.

And when fear, division, obedience, wealth, and privacy have been mined to exhaustion, the Vampire State turns to its most precious prey—the human spirit.

The Vampire State feeds on hope. The final hunger is spiritual. It drains its victims of hope until despair is all that’s left. A hopeless populace is a controlled one. Serling warned repeatedly that when people lose their moral bearings, they risk becoming the very monsters they fear.

Every horror story reaches a moment when the victims realize what they’re up against. Ours has come. The question is how to break the spell.

While Rod Serling warned of what would happen if fear and conformity became our national creed, filmmaker John Carpenter showed what it looks like when that warning is ignored.

Best known for Halloween, Carpenter’s body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment concern.

Again and again, he portrays governments at war with their own citizens, technology turned against the public, and a populace too anesthetized to resist tyranny.

In Escape from New York, fascism is America’s future. In The Thing, humanity dissolves into paranoia. In Christine, technology turns murderous. In In the Mouth of Madness, evil triumphs when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”

And in They Live, Carpenter rips off the mask completely.

Two migrant workers discover that society is controlled by parasitic aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. The people—lulled by comfort, trained by propaganda, hypnotized by screens—serve as hosts for their oppressors.

It is only when homeless drifter John Nada discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

It was fiction—but barely.

The monsters Carpenter envisioned were symbolic; ours wear suits and wave flags.

Americans no longer need special Hoffman lenses to see who is draining us. They’re not aliens disguised by human masks; our overlords sit in high offices, issue executive orders, and promise to “save” us while feeding on our fears, labor, and freedoms.

Unless we awaken soon, the Vampire State will finish what both Serling and Carpenter tried to warn us about.

The time for allegory is over; the warning has become the world we live in.

The Vampire State’s power depends on darkness—on secrecy, silence, and the willing ignorance of those it drains.

The remedy is not another political savior or bureaucratic fix. It begins where Serling’s and Carpenter’s parables always began—with the awakening of individual conscience, and the courage to name the real monsters in our midst.

Just as sunlight destroys a vampire, a populace that thinks, questions, and refuses unlawful commands is the surest defense against tyranny.

We cannot fight monsters by becoming them. We cannot defeat evil by imitating its methods.

If the Vampire State thrives on fear, feeds on hate, is empowered by violence, and demands obedience, then our weapon must be courage, our antidote love, our defense nonviolence, and our answer disciplined, creative civil disobedience.

Every generation must relearn these truths.

Almost 250 years after America’s founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to unseat a tyrant, we find ourselves under the tyrant’s thumb again, saddled with a government that feeds on the fears of the public to expand its power; a bureaucracy that grows fat on the labor of the governed; a surveillance apparatus that gorges on data, privacy, and dissent; and a war machine that sustains itself on endless conflict.

These are the symptoms of a nation that has forgotten its own cure.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to serve as stakes through the heart of authoritarian power, but they are not magic incantations.

With every act of blind obedience, every surrendered liberty, every law that elevates the government over the citizenry, our protections diminish.

When that happens, the story turns full circle: fiction becomes prophecy.

In Serling’s universe, there was always a narrator to warn us. In Carpenter’s, the heroes had to liberate themselves from the monsters’ trap.

Our task is both: to see the truth, and to act on it.

As we make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, monsters walk among us—because we have failed to see them for what they truly are.

The Vampire State is real. But so is the power of the human spirit to resist it.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post The Vampire State: Feeding on Our Fear, Freedom and Finances appeared first on LewRockwell.

Russia’s President Putin should read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli and ponder the famous statement that “it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”  Putin’s problem is that he is neither loved nor feared.  

Western propaganda has made him unloved, and Putin himself has made himself not feared. President Trump now mocks Putin’s Russia as a “paper tiger.” Putin after four years of conflict hasn’t won a war he should have won, as I have said so many times and as Trump now says, in one week. 

Having failed to fight for a quick victory and to enforce redlines, Putin has relied on announcements of new super weapons to substitute for the lack of response to ever-worsening provocations that Putin’s never-ending war continues to produce.  Having backed down in the face of every provocation, Putin has squandered the Russian deterrent. 

The Kremlin has been unable to prevent Trump and the West from defining the solution as a cease fire.  In an effort to coerce Putin into a cease fire, Trump has now placed sanctions on Russia’s oil customers, India and China.  Writing in the British Telegraph on October 26, Melissa Lawford, described as US Economics Correspondent, reports that Russia finally begins to buckle as it runs out of cards to play just as Trump turns the screws.

Lawford writes that 

“Suddenly, Putin has many reasons to be worried.

“Russia’s economy is beginning to buckle. Businesses have been crippled by high interest rates, government borrowing costs have soared and economy minister Maxim Reshetnikov warned in June that the country was ‘on the brink of a recession’. Warnings are mounting over a potential avalanche of bad debt that could trigger a financial crisis.

“Small pockets of protest are emerging. Earlier this month, hundreds of people gathered in St Petersburg Square to sing an outlawed song calling for Putin to be overthrown.

“Meanwhile, Ukraine has been aggressively ramping up its drone attacks on Russian oil refineries, hammering the country’s petrol supplies.

“Now Donald Trump is turning the screws. After frustration over a lack of progress to end the war in Ukraine, the US president announced new sanctions on two of Russia’s biggest oil companies on Wednesday.

“India and China, the main buyers of Russian oil since the war began, responded by curbing purchases. It threatens to cut off crucial oil revenues to Putin’s war machine – and the Russian state.

“’For the first time in three and a half years, Russia’s really getting hurt,’ says Timothy Ash, an associate fellow at Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia programme. ‘I think there’s some panic.’”

On top of it all a “banking crisis looms” with the prospect of bankrupt companies and a large government budget deficit.

Worst of all, Putin’s never-ending war has come home to the Russian population. 

“Thick plumes of smoke have been rising from Russian oil refineries across the country this year following an unprecedented barrage of Ukrainian drone attacks.

“Since January, Ukraine has hit 21 of Russia’s 38 largest refineries where crude oil is refined into products like petrol. It has struck as far as 683 miles into Russia from the Ukrainian border.

“So much supply has been knocked out that petrol prices have surged by 40% since the start of the year. Officials have introduced rationing in occupied Crimea while small petrol stations in Siberia have closed down. Social media is filled with video footage of enormous queues of cars waiting to fill up.”

The Telegraph article  sets out the new narrative.  Russia is on the ropes.  John Herbst of the Atlantic Council sees paranoia setting in. Timothy Ash of Chatham House sees panic. Harvard’s Craig Kennedy sees a large dark pool of debt that could undermine the economy and the banks’ ability to finance war procurement.  With Putin’s central bank director’s 16.5% interest rates, there is no money available to prevent a systemic crisis. All the while Putin clings to his faith in negotiations with Trump, which is nonsensical as Trump has defined Putin’s resistance to a cease fire as Putin’s disappointing unwillingness to negotiate.  Putin further degraded himself in the eyes of the West by responding to Trump’s sanctions on Russia’s oil customers by sending Kirill Dmitriev to Washington to continue negotiations.  Whatever the truth in this narrative, it is not one that encourages the West to address the root cause of the problem, which is Russia’s security.

With the West convinced that Russia faces collapse, how can Putin think he has a negotiation position?  Since 2014 Putin has used strong words never backed by strong action. Putin has no credibility.  Trump and the Europeans do not want the war to end.  It is too profitable for the US military/security complex with billions of dollars in commissions spilling over into the pockets of European policymakers. The prospect of immediate wealth overwhelms any concern about a future nuclear confrontation, which there will eventually be when the provocations Putin has encouraged become too great for Putin to ignore.

Inside Russia both the Deputy Foreign Minister and the host of the most important Russian state TV news analysis program said that negotiations have failed, and the only alternative is for Russia to end the war by destroying Ukraine’s ability to continue fighting.  Polls show that Russians have a high level of support for Putin, but they also show that Russians want the war to end now with a Russian victory.

How much longer can Putin ignore reality?

Trump also denies reality.  RT reports:

Trump backs renewed Israeli strikes in Gaza

The US president denied that the resumption of hostilities was “jeopardizing” the ceasefire

US President Donald Trump has defended Israel’s renewed strikes in Gaza nearly three weeks into a ceasefire he helped broker.

With both Trump and Putin in denial of reality, no good decisions can be made.

The deployment of nuclear weapons continues.

Putin’s failure to put a stop to Western provocations is leading directly to nuclear war. 

Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov replies to increasing provocations with pleas for negotiations thereby increasing Western contempt for Russia.  

Russia remains ready for a potential meeting between President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said.

Is Ushakov signaling Russia’s willingness to surrender and to accept a cease fire?  The West has made it clear that a cease fire is all that the West is interested in negotiating.  

After four wasted years, the only way out for Russia from Putin’s never-ending ever-widening war is to destroy Kiev’s ability to continue the war. It is not possible for Putin to continue his strategic blunder any longer.

The post How Much Longer Can Putin Ignore Reality? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Democrat party is the undisputed champion of lawfare — the corrupt practice of using the legal system to persecute perceived political enemies and deprive non-Democrats of their constitutional rights.  Donald Trump had a clean criminal record for the first seventy years of his life.  After he became the Republican standard-bearer, dirty Democrat lawyers unleashed an avalanche of meritless criminal investigations, prosecutions, and civil suits that have continued to this day.

Democrat FBI agents and DOJ attorneys tried to frame him as a Russian spy.  Democrat spies hiding within the national security community worked to get him impeached.  Democrat judges permitted Democrat federal agents to raid the president’s private residence and rummage through the first lady’s underwear drawer.  Democrat legislators rewrote civil statutes with the specific intent to target Trump as a defendant.  Democrat attorneys general twisted statutory language to “get Trump” and bankrupt his family.

Democrat prosecutors tried to put President Trump in prison for pursuing lawful remedies to the fraudulent, mail-in-ballot-tainted 2020 “election.”  Democrat prosecutors tried to put him in prison for a nonexistent campaign finance violation.  Democrat prosecutors tried to put him in prison for possessing exculpatory documents that expose the Russia Collusion Hoax for the crime that it is.  Democrat prosecutors tried to put an American president in prison for the rest of his life under the delusional legal fantasy that the commander in chief had engaged in “insurrection” against his own government.

Along the way, anybody within Trump’s orbit — both well known associates and unknown, random Americans — became a target for Democrat agents, prosecutors, and judges to harass.  In an effort to prop up the fraudulent Russia Collusion Hoax, Democrat prosecutors put President Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, in prison and attempted to do the same to his national security adviser, Michael Flynn.  In an effort to scare potential witnesses, heavily armed agents arrested Trump’s political adviser, Roger Stone, in a predawn raid.  In an effort to suborn false testimony that might implicate Trump in the fraudulent Russia Collusion Hoax, Democrat agents and prosecutors intimidated ancillary campaign workers, such as George Papadopoulos.  Time and again, Democrat agents humiliated Trump associates by publicly arresting them, placing them in handcuffs and leg irons, parading them before corporate news cameras for unnecessary “perp walks,” and strip-searching them while in custody.

Democrat lawyers have prosecuted and sought to disbar (successfully in some instances) numerous attorneys representing President Trump — including Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell.  Democrats in the DOJ prosecuted and imprisoned Trump’s political strategist, Steve Bannon, and his senior economic counselor, Peter Navarro, for contempt of Congress — even though the DOJ has regularly declined to pursue similar charges against Democrats, including Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder.

These are just a handful of the better known individuals who have been unjustly targeted and prosecuted because of their connection to Donald Trump.  In addition to them, thousands of ordinary Americans have been similarly harassed and unjustly prosecuted for identifying as a Trump-supporter and “Make America Great Again” voter.

Democrats in the FBI and DOJ bragged about hunting down Trump-supporters who attended the January 6, 2021 Capitol protest against the mail-in-ballot-rigged 2020 “election.”  Whereas the whole Washington Establishment — including elected officials, judges, bureaucrats, and corporate news propagandists — immediately labeled the three-hour Capitol trespass an “insurrection,” it is important to remember that the vast majority of Americans who were present that day remained outside or walked through open doors, strolled calmly down hallways, and caused no damage of any kind.  In a country known for its Second Amendment defense of personal firearm ownership, these Americans were unarmed and posed no threat.  Nevertheless, a previously disciplined Capitol Police officer shot and killed unarmed U.S. Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt.

Six months earlier, Antifa domestic terrorists and Black Lives Matter rioters burned down cities across the country, killing numerous Americans over months of sustained violence and causing more property damage than any riot in the nation’s history.  Despite the death and destruction during those dangerous months, prominent Democrats and corporate news propagandists insisted on labeling 2020’s domestic terrorism the “Summer of Love.”  The Democrat party’s nominee for vice president, Kamala Harris, encouraged Americans to bail out anyone arrested for looting businesses or burning down neighborhoods.  The Democrat-sponsored riots of 2020 set off a wave of arson, theft, murder, and violence against local police officers.  It was the textbook definition of an “insurrection,” yet Establishment Washington insiders monstrously pretended that the prolonged criminal enterprise should be celebrated as some twisted reenactment of the civil rights movement.  Few people were arrested; fewer were actually prosecuted; even fewer were criminally sentenced.

This is the kind of criminal justice double-standard to which Trump-supporters and MAGA voters have become accustomed.  President Obama’s IRS illegally targeted conservative and religious nonprofits in order to prevent them from working against his re-election efforts.  Under President Biden, FEMA employees intentionally ignored hurricane victims who could be identified as Trump-supporters.  Domestic terrorists vandalize and burn down Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, and pro-life facilities, and Democrat prosecutors refuse to investigate the crimes or punish those responsible.  Violent thugs beat up conservative workers and journalists, and Democrat judges give the criminals a slap on the wrist.  Politicians, judges, and lawyers defended the 2020 riots as a “Summer of Love” but condoned the use of SWAT teams for predawn raids on humble homes owned by retired grandparents accused of being January 6 “insurrectionists.”

With all of this as background, Democrats in office and in corporate newsrooms now accuse President Trump of seeking “revenge” against those who have inflicted harm upon him, his colleagues, and his voters in the recent past.  The prevailing feeling among Democrats in charge of America’s powerful institutions seems to be that Democrats should be allowed to harass and persecute their political opponents without paying any price.  On the contrary, there must be a price.  Otherwise, the crimes Democrats have already committed against conservative Americans will look small compared to what they have planned for the future.

Not only has Illinois governor and aspiring 2028 Democrat presidential nominee J.B. Pritzker called Department of Homeland Security officials and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “Nazis,” but also he plans on prosecuting them for arresting criminal illegal aliens in his state.  Democrat Senator Mark Kelly is threatening to prosecute “young service members” for following President Trump’s lawful orders to wage war against narco-terrorists killing Americans.  Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell is demanding that Democrat candidates for the presidency pledge to “take a wrecking ball” to the privately funded renovations of the White House’s East Wing.  Other prominent Democrats continue to insist that Democrat aspirants to the presidency first promise to imprison President Trump and his closest advisers for the rest of their lives.

Even after inciting the murder of Charlie Kirk just last month, Democrat pundits are unwilling to moderate their rhetorical calls for violence.  Reptilian James Carville recently argued that all Trump-supporters must be rounded up, shaved bald, dressed in prison uniforms, and paraded down the street so that Democrats can spit on them.  He insists that this “walk of shame” is the “only way to discourage future collaborators.”  This is the kind of persecution and violence Democrats intend to inflict upon conservatives should they reclaim power.

We should not be surprised.  We have endured Democrats’ abuse of the legal system at least since President Clinton was distracting the nation from his own scandals by pretending that freedom-loving Americans pose the greatest threat to the United States.  Hillary Clinton calls us “deplorables.”  Pritzker and the rest call us “fascists” and “Nazis.”  Democrats must be punished for their crimes before Carville and his Antifa friends have a chance to carry out their threats.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Democrats and Their Lawfare appeared first on LewRockwell.

Introduction: Why Money Power Matters

Most people graduate school knowing trigonometry but not how money is created. We learn to vote for parties but rarely examine who shapes the economic terrain those parties must walk on. Yet for more than a century, the power to create money as interest-bearing debt has quietly concentrated economic and political control in private hands. The result is a world where nations strain under compounding obligations, public debate revolves around the margins of policy, and whole societies become dependent on a credit system they neither designed nor fully understand.

This essay distills key arguments and quotations (historical and contemporary) about how modern banking actually works, why debt has become the engine of governance, and what that means for sovereignty, prosperity, and even our moral compass. The aim is not to recycle slogans but to clarify mechanisms: how money enters circulation, who benefits first, who bears the risks, and why the system almost always demands more growth, more extraction, and more debt.

1) The Core Mechanism: Money as Debt, Not as Value

A century of central banking and commercial credit has normalized a simple but profound fact: most new money is created when banks make loans. As former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert B. Anderson put it in 1959, when a bank issues a loan, it credits a deposit that did not exist the moment before; the new deposit is “new money.” In practice, this means the money supply expands primarily through private lending, not public issuance.

That mechanism is turbocharged by fractional-reserve banking and today by capital-based banking rules: banks do not lend out pre-existing savings one-for-one; they expand deposits by creating credit. Interest is attached to that credit, meaning the system requires continual new borrowing to service past borrowing. If credit creation slows materially, defaults rise, asset prices wobble, and political pressure mounts to “stimulate” again. In short, we live inside a treadmill that is far more credit-driven than most civics textbooks admit.

Critics from Henry Ford to John Scales Avery have argued that this arrangement is structurally unjust because it privatizes the seigniorage (the profit of creating money) and socializes the fallout (inflation, asset bubbles, austerity). Whether or not one accepts every claim these critics make, the underlying math is hard to ignore: when money arrives as interest-bearing debt, the system has a built-in bias toward ever-expanding leverage.

2) From Private Credit to Public Power: How We Got Here

Modern banking’s political leverage grew alongside institutions like the Bank of England and, later, the U.S. Federal Reserve (established in 1913). Whatever the intention of their founders, central banks now sit at the junction of state and finance: they are publicly mandated yet operationally insulated (and privately owned), coordinating liquidity to stabilize the system while commercial banks originate most money-like claims.

This hybrid design has real consequences. It allows a small circle of decision-makers to set the price of money (interest rates), backstop private balance sheets in crises, and influence fiscal choices by making some policies financially easy and others expensive. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan once emphasized the institution’s independence; the flip side of that independence is low democratic visibility over choices that shape every mortgage, job market, and public budget.

Beyond national central banks lies the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel — often called the “central bank of central banks.” Through standards (Basel accords) and coordination, it helps align global banking rules. Critics argue this produces a technocratic layer of control over national economies with little public oversight. Whether one views that as prudent stewardship or as democratic deficit, it underscores a theme: the architecture of money governance is largely opaque to the public it governs.

3) Debt as an Organizing Principle: Nations on the Hook

If money is introduced mainly through borrowing, then borrowers become the gearwheels of the system. This is true of households, firms, and crucially governments. National debts have exploded over decades. Interest on those debts is neither a schoolbook abstraction nor a harmless line item: it diverts tax revenue from public goods to creditor claims year after year.

Concrete examples illustrate the point. Countries such as Ireland have paid billions annually in debt interest, amounts that can reach a significant share of national profits in strong years. Canada has spent tens of billions per year on interest at various points. The United States services hundreds of billions annually. The deeper the debt stock and the higher the rates, the more fiscal space narrows — and the easier it is for outside creditors and institutions to demand policy concessions as the price of liquidity.

International lending reinforces the pattern. When a country is pulled into a crisis, the usual medicine involves austerity and privatization in exchange for financing — effectively transferring public assets and future cash flows into private hands. Even when such programs stabilize a currency, they often leave a legacy of reduced sovereignty and social strain. Either way, the organizing principle remains: service the debt first.

4) Why Perpetual Growth Feels Non-Negotiable

Once you grasp that interest-bearing credit is the dominant source of new money, the politics of “growth at any cost” make more sense. If economies must expand to service past obligations, then policymakers are incentivized to chase GDP even when the ecological or social returns are negative. This is why governments of every stripe tend to converge on similar policies when growth stalls: tax incentives to borrow and invest, financial repression to keep rates low, deficit spending to plug holes, and pressure on central banks to ease again.

Critics like Roy Madron, John Jopling, and John Scales Avery have argued that this growth-dependency crowds out other goals: equitable distribution, environmental stewardship, and cultural stability. It also explains why mainstream debates often avoid the root structure and instead focus on the speed of the treadmill. We argue about 2% vs. 3% inflation rather than who issues money, who captures seigniorage, and who eats the losses when cycles turn.

As Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard long argued, when credit expansion replaces real savings as the engine of growth, the boom itself becomes the seed of its own collapse. Their Austrian insight — that sound money rooted in market discipline is the only durable safeguard against political manipulation and the cartelization of banking — remains as urgent today as ever (Mises, Human Action; Rothbard, America’s Great Depression; Mises, Theory of Money and Credit).

This synthesis draws on Mises, “The Theory of Money and Credit,” ch. 17; Rothbard, “The Mystery of Banking,” ch. 3; and related works.

5) The Federal Reserve: Public Mandate, Private Origins

The Federal Reserve occupies an unusual space: a public mandate (stable prices, maximum employment) implemented through a system owned by member banks at the regional level. Court language has long acknowledged that Federal Reserve Banks are corporate entities with private shareholders (commercial banks) electing many directors. The Board of Governors is a federal agency, but the operational plumbing marries public purpose with private infrastructure.

From an accountability standpoint, this hybrid model raises fair questions:

• Who ultimately benefits when the Fed backstops markets?
• How do we balance public interest with the stability of private balance sheets?
• Why is the creation and allocation of money largely engineered by institutions that citizens do not vote for?

Even defenders of the status quo should concede that the communications gap is vast: the average citizen has little idea how reserves, repos, and facilities translate into real-world wealth effects. That lack of transparency naturally makes people suspicious — even when the suspicion isn’t always justified — because it means the public has little idea how major financial decisions are made or who benefits from them. In the end, this secrecy prevents ordinary citizens and their representatives from openly debating choices that affect everyone’s livelihoods.

6) Usury, Inflation, and the Cost of “Stability”

When money is predominantly debt, interest is not a side note; it is a structural tax on all who need money to transact. Banks, by creating credit, collect streams of interest that compound through the system. Meanwhile, inflation — the dilution of purchasing power — often becomes a necessary byproduct of keeping debt-loads serviceable. In practice, inflation acts as a stealth transfer from savers and wage earners to those closer to the spigot of new money (large financial institutions and asset owners).

This is not an argument to abolish credit; modern economies need flexible financing. It is an argument to name the trade-offs honestly. When we call monetary loosening a “stimulus,” we should also disclose who absorbs the loss in purchasing power and who gains from asset inflation. When we raise rates to “fight inflation,” we should admit the cost in jobs, bankruptcies, and public budgets. Stability is never free; it is reallocated volatility.

7) The Global Layer: Coordination Without Consent

Beyond national systems lies a web of global coordination — standards, swap lines, and lender-of-last-resort arrangements that knit economies together. Institutions such as the BIS, the IMF, and development banks shape the terms of liquidity and restructuring. Supporters say this is necessary to prevent contagion; critics counter that it allows a transnational financial class to set conditions on democratic societies in moments of maximum vulnerability.

Both views can be true. But whichever side you take, the outcome is similar: creditors hold leverage, and policy follows balance-sheet realities. The deeper the debt and the tighter the markets, the narrower the options for governments and citizens. This is not a conspiracy; it is a design choice we rarely discuss.

8) Sovereignty, Media, and the Narrative Problem

The power to create money and allocate credit inevitably spills into media and politics. Owners of major financial claims own or influence the platforms that shape public narratives. This does not mean that every newsroom takes orders from a bank; it does mean that structural critiques of debt-money systems are often marginalized, while surface controversies get saturation coverage.

The result is a public perpetually debating symptoms — inequality, housing bubbles, wage stagnation, austerity — without interrogating the monetary architecture that channels outcomes. Representative democracy then becomes a choice between parties that manage the same treadmill at different speeds.

9) The Ethical Dimension: Stewardship vs. Exploitation

Strip away the technicalities and we’re left with a moral question: What is money for? If it’s a public utility that measures and mobilizes real work and resources, then its creation and allocation should be transparent, accountable, and aligned with the common good. If money is something sold for profit and interest instead of managed for the public good, then we should at least admit we’re living in a world where banks’ claims on our future work matter more than people’s well-being today.

Across traditions — secular and spiritual — there runs a consistent thread: wealth is stewardship, not ownership. “Dominion” over the earth does not mean permission to strip-mine the future; it means responsibility for the living systems that sustain us. Any economic architecture that demands perpetual extraction to service compounding claims will eventually collide with ecological limits and human dignity.

10) What Reform Could Mean (Without Utopian Promises)

This essay does not prescribe a single fix, but it points toward principles that reformers across the spectrum could evaluate:

1. Monetary transparency: Citizens deserve clear explanations of how money enters circulation, who receives it first, and on what terms.
2. Seigniorage for the public: Explore mechanisms by which the gains from money creation serve public priorities rather than accruing primarily to private balance sheets.
3. Counter-cyclical buffers: Policies that reduce boom-bust extremes (e.g., stricter leverage in booms; automatic stabilizers in busts) can mitigate the human cost of credit cycles.
4. Sovereign capacity: Restore and protect national capacity to issue money or public credit directly for real-economy projects, with independent audits to curb abuse.
5. Ethical limits: Recognize that any system demanding infinite growth on a finite planet is mathematically fragile and morally shortsighted. Design for resilience over hype.

These are not radical ideas; they are overdue discussions in a world where nearly everyone is a debtor, directly or indirectly, to a machine that few understand.

I explore these dynamics in greater depth in my book The Debt Machine: How Private Banks Engineered Global Control, which traces how private money creation became the hidden architecture of global power — and how sovereign nations can reclaim control over credit and policy.

Conclusion: Seeing the Machine

If you remember only one thing, let it be this: money is not neutral. How it is created, who controls its issuance, and what claims attach to it determine the shape of our economies and the boundaries of our politics. We can disagree about the best reforms, but we can no longer afford civic illiteracy about the monetary plumbing that governs our lives.

In a healthy society, the architecture of money would be a public conversation, not a specialist’s secret. Until then, the treadmill will keep turning — and those closest to the controls will keep deciding how fast the rest of us must run.

The post The Hidden Architecture of Debt: How Private Banks Captured the Global Economy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday U.S. President Donald Trump visited Japan and met with its new Prime Minister Sanae Takaishi. Both are conservatives and agree on many points. Japan is a trusted vassal which rarely collides with the U.S. demands.

But one serious point of contention is open between the two nations and threatens to blow up the relation.

Earlier this year Trump had imposed a 25% tariff on U.S. imports from Japan. The previous prime minister had ‘sold the house’ to lower that rate:

So desperate was now-former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba to lower Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on Japanese products to 15%, especially on automotive products, that he signed on to an incredible surrender regarding Tokyo’s promise for the government to invest $550 billion in the US over the coming three years.

Not only does Trump get to choose the projects and the US get the lion’s share of any profits, but if Japan dares to reject any of Trump’s schemes as nonviable, Ishiba has given Trump permission to impose even higher tariffs. The jointly-signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) says that, “In the case where Japan elects not to fund [a project Trump has named—rk], the United States may also impose tariff rate or rates on Japanese imports into the United States at the rate determined by the President [emphasis added].”

The total surrender took the form of a Memorandum of Understanding which did not require a vote in the Diet. But the enormous amount of money it pledges to invest in the U.S. would need parliamentary approval. There was and is practically not chance that anything like it would pass. The ‘investment’ would blow up Japan’s government budget. It would also increase the U.S. trade deficit with Japan.

The completely unbalanced agreement was one reason why Ishiba was ousted from his position.

I had wondered how Takaishi would handle this most important issues. But it seems that both sides have agreed to ignore it:

Inside a gold-drenched palace in Tokyo on Tuesday, President Trump heaped praise on Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s new prime minister, telling her that their countries were “allies at the strongest level” and vowing to come to Japan’s aide on “any favors you need.”

The leaders signed two vaguely worded agreements — one declaring a “new golden age of the US-Japan alliance,” and another to cooperate on expanding the supply chain for rare earth metals — but there was little sign of any breakthrough in the details of the trade deal both countries signed onto in July.

There was no public talk about a major point of contention between the two countries: the details of how Japan intends to spend a promised $550 billion investment into the United States. The promise came as part of the trade deal, and in return for the large investment, Japan was to receive a 15 percent tariff on its exports — a lower rate than Mr. Trump had initially threatened.

Instead, both leaders focused more on what they had in common …

Another report says that the deal was mentioned on the sideline but that nothing was done to resolve its problems:

Trump’s trip to Japan was an early test of whether Takaichi could build inroads with the American president as the countries grapple with security commitments, trade tensions and the threat of China. Japan faces a daunting promise to invest $550 billion in the United States in exchange for lower tariff rates, and Trump administration officials have signaled they want Japan to pay more money to host U.S. troops.
…
Over a lunch of American rice and beef cooked with Japanese ingredients, the prime minister presented Trump with a map of the investments Japan is making into the United States, after the country committed to pour $550 billion into the United States in exchange for lower tariffs. In return, Trump signed lunch menus for Takaichi and her delegation.

“Look, I got a lunch menue signed by Trump and all I had to pay for it were $550 billion.” I don’t think that’s how the world, outside of Trump’s mind, really works.

Trump wants the money to build a ‘sovereign wealth fund’ which he can use to buy and control shares of U.S. companies.

It is therefore likely that he will insist that Japan fulfills the MoU no matter what. But Japan can not do that and Takaichi will have to solve the problem.

As the issue could create a break in U.S.- Japan relations Takaichi will have to prepare for that to happen. Alastair Crooke detects signs that she is already doing this:

In her first address to the nation, Takaishi said that she would not support the US trade war against China, and would not become an instrument of US economic pressure. She openly criticised Trump’s tariff policy, calling it ‘the most dangerous mistake of the 21stcentury’.

Reuters commented that her stance was wholly unexpected in Washington. A big shock. It emerged that since taking office, the new PM had held a series of meetings with the largest Japanese corporations who had conveyed a unified and urgent message to her: Simply — the Japanese economy would not survive another trade war.

Then, one week after taking office, she openly expressed support for China, executing the biggest foreign policy pivot since WW2. China was no longer the ‘enemy’.

Might this be Japan’s real strategy?

To caress the narcissism in Trump to divert him from a Japanese move towards China which eventually may allow it to break with the U.S.?

I for one would call that a good plan.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post How Can Japan Handle Its $550 Billion Trump Problem? appeared first on LewRockwell.

It can be hard to imagine a looming food crisis when you can walk into your local grocery store and see shelves overflowing with abundance. You can find easily find everything you need, and plenty that you don’t.

You might even ignore those around you warning you to stock up on food while you still can. In fact, they might seem like Chicken Little desperately calling out, “The sky is falling!”

But don’t let the full shelves fool you. While the sky may not actually be falling, the world is facing a food shortage. It’s only a matter of time until it hits. Until then, the government wants you to keep walking into the stores, feeling like everything is fine.

The world’s food situation is not fine. Here are just eight of the many indicators that it’s time to stockpile food, and start growing some of your own.

1. Raising Food Prices

Have you noticed the price of groceries rising in your area? I sure have here, especially for basic staple ingredients such as butter, flour, and rice. Every time I head to the store, it seems like I have to stretch my food dollars a little further.

It’s not just in my neck of the woods where prices are creeping up. According to a study by the USDA Economic Research Service, supermarket prices are expected to rise .25-1.25 percent during 2025, and 1.0-2.0 percent during 2026. While those percentage points may seem low, they’re still moving up.

But, since the price of gas and food are intertwined, those numbers could soar past predictions if gas goes up again. Most of the food in the supermarket wasn’t grown in your local area. It was shipped there, requiring fuel.

As food prices continue rising, it’s getting harder and harder for families to buy what they need. That means the number of families now getting food assistance from the government continues to grow. It’s not a healthy outlook for our food supply.

2. Drought

Plants need water to grow and produce harvestable yields. As temperatures around the world rise, droughts are becoming more common.

Widespread droughts are hitting fertile cropland across the planet. From California to India, low rainfall and high temperatures cause devastation on crop production. Long-term forecasts indicate these weather patterns are likely to continue.

3. Diseases Wiping Out Crops & Animals

It’s not just the weather wreaking havoc on our food supply, it’s also disease. From the virulent Panama disease taking out bananas to African Swine Fever that can wipe out entire pig farms, diseases are running rampant in the food supply.

Modern food production techniques such as CAFOs create the perfect environment for peril. In a natural setting, you’d see a couple of pigs on farms across the landscape. They’d be interacting with nature, and have other animals and plant life around to help keep disease causing parasites at bay.

Instead, the majority of today’s pig farms are just pigs and concrete all around. When a disease comes in, it quickly moves through the whole herd. Often entire farms have to execute their animals to prevent the disease from spreading.

The loss of that many animals plays a role in rising food prices. Supply can no longer keep up with demand.

These issues aren’t just a problem for pigs. Cows, chickens, and other animals are being raised in conditions that make them prone for disease.

Crops are being raised in similar fashion. Instead of farmers growing a variety of crops, you see corn growing in huge fields for miles around. There are similar fields for soybeans, wheat, and other crops.

4. Food Safety Concerns

Have you noticed how often food is being recalled? From peanuts to frozen vegetables, meat to processed foods, it’s hard to trust the establishment to deliver safe food to your table. Listeria, e-coli, salmonella, and a host of other food borne illnesses are harming and killing people around the globe. Modern food handling practices have led to these food safety concerns.

Factories play a part in the production of numerous food products. When one factory has a role to play in the bulk of the food system, a containment can quickly spread.

Add transportation, storage, and unsafe handling, and you’ve got food that’s ready to play host to multiple strains of bacteria. Then there’s that whole GMO debate. Some countries don’t believe that genetically modified foods are safe for consumption. Others have drunk the GMO Kool-Aid and are pushing them on the marketplace at an astounding rate.

That’s another reason to grow your own food. You can pick heirloom varieties that haven’t been modified. No matter what you grow and preserve, be sure to inspect what you stockpile to ensure it’s safe.

5. Crops Being Used for Other Purposes

Crops aren’t just being grown to feed humans anymore. A huge portion of our food supply goes to feed cows. Cows were never meant to eat grains in the first place! Let them eat hay, and that’ll relieve a huge burden on our food supply.

Then there’s the whole ethanol thing. About a quarter of US corn is being used for fuel instead of food now. With a food crisis already in the works, using food for other purposes adds to the problem.

Read the Whole Article

The post 8 Signs Predict the Coming Food Crisis in the Next Years! appeared first on LewRockwell.

In 2023, beloved actress Suzanne Somers succumbed to breast cancer. She was best known for her starring roles as Chrissy Snow in Three’s Company and Carol Foster Lambert in Step by Step. She also authored a number of books and was known for advertising the legendary ThighMaster device.

This October, her husband, Alan Hamel, announced something both astonishing and quite unsettling: he had created an artificial-intelligence “clone” of his late wife. According to reports, this digital and robotic re-creation mimics Somers’ voice, appearance, and even her conversational habits with eerie precision. Day by day, what we once thought was science fiction is becoming more and more a reality. Hamel’s experiment is a sad attempt to keep a loved one alive through data and circuitry. Some have referred to this concept as “digital necromancy.”

Although the very notion of this may seem tempting, it could also be viewed as a harmless devotion or even a form of technological curiosity. In my mind, however, it reveals a deep spiritual malaise of our age: humanity’s growing belief that technology can redeem what only God can restore. The project of transhumanism, the attempt to overcome mortality and perfect human nature through technology, has quietly moved from the speculative to the domestic. What Hamel calls love is, at its core, an act of self-creation: the belief that human ingenuity can somehow transcend death.

In one of my recent essays for Crisis Magazine, “Gender Ideology and Violence: Cultural Confusion and the Spiritual Battle,” I argued that gender ideology denies the created order by rejecting biological dimorphism and the givenness of both maleness and femaleness. Transhumanism represents the logical progression of this same rebellion. The transgender movement begins with the conviction that identity can be reconstructed at one’s will. Transhumanism radicalizes this idea into the dream of reengineering not just the body but also the species itself into what can be called a humanoid.

Not unrelated, over the past years, there have been many flirtations with the concept of transspeciesism. This concept bears a strong connection to Greek mythological creatures like the Chimera and the Minotaur. Deepfake AI is creating plenty of videos of this sort. Transgenderism, transspeciesism, and transhumanism rely on the metaphysical lie: namely, that man can define his own essence apart from God.

Recently, on my flight to Spain, I watched with fascination a deeply disturbing film titled Companion. The movie depicts a near-future world in which artificial beings are programmed with adaptive memories and simulated emotions and begin to blur the line between servant and master. These AI humanoid robots serve as friends or even romantic and sexual partners. The film exposes the ethical nightmare of tampering with consciousness and memory—of creating machines that can mimic remorse, affection, deception, and manipulation. These “companions” illustrate the danger inherent in the extreme application of non-reductive functionalism: the notion that consciousness can be duplicated solely through informational structures.

However, functionalism fails to account for the irreducible first-person perspective of conscious experience. Even the so-called non-reductive version unravels upon closer thought. It argues that consciousness can emerge from matter, ignoring the ontological chasm between being self-aware and being mechanical. The interior life of a person, the ability to know, to choose, and to love, transcends any web of functions or algorithms.

No pattern of physical causes can give rise to an immaterial soul. In turn, when memory becomes programmable, the very notion of moral responsibility is extinguished. Make no mistake: this is not a triumph of reason but a mechanization of evil, where empathy itself can be simulated for Machiavellian ends; it is a chilling reflection of humanity’s own capacity to imitate empathy while erasing the soul.

Long before Frankenstein, Greek mythology warned of unnatural procreation. Creations like the Minotaur and Chimera were born of transgressive unions that blurred the boundaries between man and beast. Later, H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau reimagined this impulse through grotesque biological experimentation, foreshadowing today’s biotechnological transgressions. Companion dramatizes that same ancient fear, echoed from Frankenstein to 2001: A Space Odyssey—the creature’s revolt against its creator, but with a distinctly modern twist: the machines inherit not only our intelligence but also our depravity.

In my 2020 lecture for the Science of Consciousness conference, “Artificial Intelligence, the Nature of Consciousness, Information, Reality, and the Possibility of the Afterlife,” I emphasized that memory is not a database but an act of self-presence. In other words, memory is a unified integration of intellect, will, and affectivity within an enduring subject reflecting the “sameness” of the self. Although replication of neural patterns may reproduce behavioral outputs, it does not reflect the ontological unity of a person. Information can store traces, but it cannot restore being.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Illusion of Self-Creation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Goodwill gestures are meant to make the recipient trust whoever does them with the expectation that they’ll then be reciprocated for improving their relations.

Putin offered in late September to extend the New START, which is the last arms control pact between Russia and the US, for another year following its expiry in early February. He then reaffirmed his proposal in early October, emphasizing that there’s still time to extend this crucial agreement if the US has the political will, which appears to be the case given Trump’s recent praise of it as “a good idea”. Regardless of whatever happens, Putin’s offer is a goodwill gesture to Trump, which will now be explained.

For background, Putin announced Russia’s suspension of the New START in February 2023 in response to NATO’s involvement in Ukraine’s drone attacks against his country’s strategic aviation bases several months prior, which was analyzed here as the right thing to do at the right time. Nearly a year later in January 2024, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov then declared that talks on this issue won’t resume till the Ukrainian Conflict ends, arguing that doing otherwise would put Russia at a disadvantage.

With that in mind, it was expected at the start of the year that “Mutual Interest In Resuming Arms Control Talks Can Speed Up The Ukrainian Peace Process”, yet that didn’t come to pass with Russian-US tensions escalating shortly after mid-August’s Anchorage Summit. Nevertheless, Putin still publicly praised Trump for working towards peace and proposed extending New START for another year, thus representing a change in Russia’s position as articulated by Lavrov over 18 months earlier.

Goodwill gestures are meant to make the recipient trust whoever does them with the expectation that they’ll then be reciprocated for improving their relations. That doesn’t always happen though as proven by Russia’s goodwill gesture of withdrawing from Kiev during spring 2022’s peace talks being seen as weakness by Ukraine, the UK, and Poland, the last two of which then convinced Ukraine to keep fighting. The possibility thus exists that Trump might perceive Putin’s latest goodwill gesture in the same way.

It’s crucial to mention that Putin reassured his people that Russia can ensure its national security even in the absence of extending New START and that any unilateral moves by the US to further upset the strategic balance between their countries would render this pact null and void. What he probably had in mind was Trump’s “Golden Dome” initiative, previously known as the “Iron Dome”, for reviving Reagan’s “Star Wars” plan for space-based interceptors and likely secret space-based offensive missiles too.

Taking his trade deals as precedent, he always wants the US to maintain the dominant position in any “compromise”, so he might either insist on continuing to build the “Golden Dome” despite this ruining any New START extension or secretly continuing to do so even if he says he won’t. If the CIA assesses that Russia might transfer cutting-edge nuclear weapons technology to China and/or North Korea in that case, and that this would in turn jeopardize US national security interests, then he might reconsider.

Putin’s goodwill gesture to Trump of offering to extend New START is therefore a pivotal moment in their ties since it’ll allow Russia to learn whether the US is serious about compromising. If Trump doesn’t ditch the “Golden Dome” or dupes Putin about freezing work on it, then even though the new Burevestnik missile could still piece through it, Russia might still opt to transfer this tech to its nuclear-armed allies in order to raise the costs to the US of rejecting Russia’s proposal so that it doesn’t reject future ones too.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Putin’s Offer To Extend the New Start Is a Goodwill Gesture to Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

While deep state propaganda convinces public opinion that Russia is evil, armies are being prepared for war before our very eyes. The Chief of Staff of the French Army, General Pierre Schill, has just announced to the National Assembly that he is preparing for the next war against Russia. Meanwhile, the Polish Deputy Prime Minister announced that he would intercept Vladimir Putin’s presidential plane. Alone against all his allies, Donald Trump is trying to preserve world peace.

The clash between President Donald Trump and the coalition of British, American, Israeli, and Ukrainian deep states is likely to extend to the Far East. In Japan, Sanae Takaichi has just formed an LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) government thanks to his alliance with the Innovation Party, which shares his hawkish outlook.

Far East

Although Prime Minister Takaichi is the first woman to hold this office, she is nonetheless a champion of Shōwa-era “Japanese imperialism.” Barely in her inauguration, she announced her intention to rewrite the National Defense Strategy (NDS), the Defense Strengthening Program (DBP), and the National Security Strategy (NSS). These texts are normally updated every ten years, but will be reformed seven years early.

Sanae Takaichi claims she simply wants to honor President Trump’s wish that every U.S. ally spend 5 percent of its GDP on defense; everyone has figured out that she wants to restore the Emperor’s military, amend the Constitution to end Japanese neutrality, and attack the Korean Peninsula and the People’s Republic of China.

To be clear, his predecessor and outgoing Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, sent an offering to the Yasukuni Shrine in memory of Japanese criminals against humanity. Ishiba is the largest private collector of World War II memorabilia. His home is a shrine to war criminals.

Unlike in previous years, Ms. Takaichi certainly did not go to the Yasukuni Shrine this year. She refrained from using anything too provocative, and Shigeru Ishiba went there very rarely. But she did appoint seven men from among the parliamentarians corrupted by the Moon sect as ministers and secretaries of state.

Following the assassination of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on July 8, 2022, by a victim of the Moon cult, police discovered that she had bribed not only him, but also lawmakers from her own party, the Liberal Democratic Party. Over the previous four years, she had paid them half a billion dollars. Yes, half a billion dollars. The largest parliamentary corruption scandal in history; a scandal that remains unsolved and has only led to three indictments.

At the same time, Reverend Moon’s widow was arrested, at the age of 82, in South Korea for having bribed President Yoon Suk Yeol’s wife. While the sums are not the same, President Yoon suddenly attempted a coup d’état on December 3rd. This conservative intended to reestablish the dictatorship of General Chun Doo-hwan (1980-1988). However, this disastrous regime was a member of the World Anti-Communist League, founded by Chinese General Chiang Kai-shek, South Korean Reverend Moon, Japanese Ryoichi Sasakawa (founder of the Liberal Democratic Party)… and Ukrainian Yaroslav Stetsko (former right-hand man of Stepan Bandera and Ukrainian Nazi Prime Minister).

While the Korean branch of the deep state now appears to be out of the running, the Japanese branch is now on the rise.

Middle East

In the Middle East, the Israeli deep state was reconstituted thanks to the American Elliott Abrams. In 2003, he managed to assemble a coalition to bring Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu back to power. But this coalition included Jewish supremacists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Above all, the new Netanyahu was very different from the opportunistic politician of his early days. He suddenly became the successor to his father, Benzion Netanyahu, private secretary to the fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky. He profoundly transformed the Israeli constitutional system by amending its basic laws. Little by little, the democratic regime is transforming into a genocidal regime before everyone’s eyes.

Elliott Abrams began his political career in the 1970s. He was a congressional aide to Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, alongside students of the fascist philosopher Leo Strauss, including Richard Perle. Perle and Abrams advised the senator to vote for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which allowed Soviet Jews to leave their country and settle in Israel. It was during this time that they became friends with Ukrainian Natan Sharansky, who was decorated by President Ronald Reagan and later became Israeli minister under General Ariel Sharon, and is now responsible for Israeli propaganda in the Western world.
Elliott Abrams continued his career by organizing the genocide of the Mayans in Guatemala with the Revisionist Zionist Yitzhak Shamir (then at the Mossad).
One crime leading to another, he was the organizer of the secret alliance between the Reagan administration, Yitzhak Shamir (who became Prime Minister) and the President of the Iranian Assembly, Hashemi Rafsanjani: the Iran-Contra affair. The aim was to have the Islamic Republic sell Israeli weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua, to defeat the Sandinistas, without having to inform Congress.
He is now the president of the Tikvah Foundation, which manages revisionist Zionist schools in the United States. In this capacity, he “was” the employer of Benjamin Haddad, Minister Delegate for Europe in the last four French governments.

Europe

In the United Kingdom, the Keir Starmer government is elusive. Although he is a Labour member, Starmer was secretly a member of the Trilateral Commission, which would seem to indicate that he is an agent of big US capital. Although he was close to Jeremy Corbyn, he was one of those who organized his downfall. Not to mention his relentless defense of Israel under the pretext of fighting anti-Semitism. Beyond all the hypotheses put forward about him, he appears to be a defender of British imperialism.

Since he became Prime Minister, Her Majesty’s Army has become significantly involved in the Gaza genocide. The British General Staff has received senior Israeli generals in secret on numerous occasions, even assuring them that they were not in danger of being arrested by magistrates who are scrupulous about crimes against humanity. It has provided faithful surveillance of Gaza day after day from its reconnaissance aircraft based in Cyprus.

At the same time, the Starmer government inherited the sanctions imposed by the Sunak government against the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch), and particularly against Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Brotherhood’s leader in Gaza. It lifted the sanctions against him, which had been imposed with the United States, and then reinstated them on April 9, 2025.

Finally, he trained Israeli officers during the massacre. Simultaneously, he took control of the Ramstein Group when the US Defense Ministry sought to get rid of it. This is now the Contact Group on the Defense of Ukraine, where he succeeded in marginalizing the French presence and bringing the German presence under his control.

It was known that Starmer’s predecessor, Conservative Boris Johnson, had convinced President Volodymyr Zelensky not to negotiate peace with Russia, despite this being his initial election manifesto. But the interpretation of this commitment must be revised, noting that Labour’s Keir Starmer has continued his policy, demanding ever greater commitment against Russia from his Ukrainian counterparts.

It should be remembered that Boris Johnson is an admirer of Winston Churchill, to whom he has dedicated a biography. Churchill, however, considered the USSR not as an ally against the Third Reich, but as an enemy in waiting. He had planned, at the end of the Second World War, to use the defeated SS regiments and turn them against the Soviets ( Operation Unthinkable ). He had asked his staff to plan a nuclear annihilation of major Soviet cities and was only prevented from doing so by the United States. Subsequently, he recruited almost all possible Axis leaders to fight against Moscow. This is what is called the “Cold War.” Thus, Stepan Bandera and Yaroslav Stetsko worked for the Allies in Munich, within the CIA radio, which he did alongside Said Ramadan, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Keir Starmer is the heir to this strategy. His aim is not to fight the Slavs because they are an inferior race (as the Nazis believed), but because they threaten British supremacy on the European continent (as geopolitical scientist Halford John Mackinder taught).

He activated a British agent: Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski. Sikorski announced that Poland would intercept Vladimir Putin’s presidential plane if he attempted to travel to the Budapest summit to meet Donald Trump and conclude peace in Ukraine. As a result, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, to postpone the peace summit.

Radosław Sikorski left Poland in 1981 for England. He became a subject of the Crown and a journalist at the Spectator , the Observer , and the Daily Telegraph . He then migrated to the United States, where he became a section editor at the Republican monthly National Review  ; a historic Republican and therefore anti-Trump magazine. He later founded the Polish Press Club and married American journalist Anne Applebaum, a director of the Bilderberg Group. His wife, a Republican like him, defected when Donald Trump took over the Republican Party. She became an advisor to Democrat Hillary Clinton. As a result, Radosław Sikorski became Poland’s deputy minister of defense and NATO’s main media outlet. Faced with questions about his dual allegiance, he abandoned his British nationality, but apparently not his submission to the Crown.

The post Anti-Russian Propaganda and Preparation for War Against Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

The US can make threats, impose sanctions and amass war machinery, but you don’t truly know they’re serious about attacking a country until they start churning out Pentagon propaganda in the mainstream press.

It’s just news story after news story about the US and its allies terrorizing the world today.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been filming themselves committing horrific massacres in Sudan over the last couple of days, reportedly murdering some two thousand civilians. You can see the bloodstains on the ground in satellite images. As we discussed the other day, the RSF and its atrocities are backed by the UAE, a close partner of the United States.

Meanwhile Israel has committed another wave of massacres of its own throughout the Gaza Strip, reportedly killing 104 people in a single day, including 46 children. This is as many Palestinians as would typically be killed on any given day in Gaza prior to the so-called “ceasefire”.

CBS News’ 60 Minutes has released a cartoonishly blatant war propaganda piece on “Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s dictator” about how poor and unhappy the people of Venezuela are under their current government. The piece featured an interview with Republican Senator Rick Scott, who said that “If I was Maduro I’d head to Russia or China right now; his days are numbered.”

The US can make threats, impose sanctions and amass war machinery, but you don’t truly know they’re serious about attacking a country until they start churning out Pentagon propaganda in the mainstream press.

In the same interview, Scott also said that if Maduro is successfully ousted, “it’ll be the end of Cuba.”

“America is gonna take care of the southern hemisphere and make sure there’s freedom and democracy,” he added.

The senator’s statements suggest that the US is preparing a push in Latin America similar to what it has been executing with Israel in the middle east, eliminating any powers which refuse to bend the knee. South of the US border the top two disobedient governments are the socialist states of Venezuela and Cuba. In the middle east the US and Israel have spent the last two years bombing Iran and Yemen, securing a regime change in Syria, and doing everything they can to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah in order to rule the region uncontested.

And of course we’ve still got the horrifying US proxy war in Ukraine, where men continue to be dragged off against their will to fight in a nightmarish conflict that most Ukrainians now oppose, but which Zelensky is saying he intends to keep fighting for years against the will of the public. This whole miserable ordeal could have been avoided with a little diplomacy and a few low-cost concessions, but the western power alliance avoided off-ramp after off-ramp in order to ensure that Russia would get sucked into another costly military quagmire.

All over the world the US and its allies are murdering and abusing people in order to dominate the planet and ensure the survival of the capitalist system with which its power is intertwined. It is a giant murder machine feeding on human blood and the life force of our biosphere while providing nothing but obstacles to a healthy world.

The US-centralized empire is a disease that affects our entire species. We had better find a cure, and fast.

______________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. 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 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 It’s Just Wall-To-Wall News Stories About The US and Its Allies Abusing the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post The ‘War On Narco-Terrorism’ Is The New ‘War On Terrorism’…And Will End Just As Badly appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Bill Madden:

When President Trump appointed mostly neocon warmongers to leadership positions in his administration, it became obvious that the second Trump administration would have a very aggressive, if not belligerent, foreign policy.  It is alleged that President Trump is most influenced by the last advisor with whom he communicates.  Unfortunately, with almost his entire group of appointees being devout neocon warmongers, his last advisor is almost assuredly going to advocate an unconstitutional hard line for any foreign policy decision. 

We know from President Trump’s disregard for Congressman Massie that he considers the Constitution to be a nuisance.

Our problem as citizens is that, if we ever were allowed (by our controllers) to elect a genuine statesperson, he or she would most likely be assassinated before any good could be accomplished.   

The Rubio Doctrine: Neocons Are Back!

 

 

The post Re: ‘The Rubio Doctrine: Neocons Are Back!’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Lance Roberts

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-declino-economico-della-cina-e)

Pochi sono così schietti e storicamente accurati come il gestore di hedge fund, Kyle Bass, nell'identificare le rotture strutturali dell'economia mondiale. In una recente intervista Bass ha dipinto un quadro fosco, ma eloquente, della situazione economica della Cina:

Stiamo assistendo ai più grandi squilibri macroeconomici che il mondo abbia mai visto e tutti questi squilibri stanno raggiungendo il culmine in Cina.

Sebbene la Cina sia stata a lungo considerata la prossima grande superpotenza economica, la sua recente traiettoria rivela una storia ben diversa, segnata da passi falsi politici, da un marciume finanziario sistemico e da un motore di crescita in rapida erosione.

Anche Bass non ha usato mezzi termini:

L'economia cinese sta precipitando senza freni.

Il deflatore del PIL cinese, la misura più ampia dei prezzi di beni e servizi, continua a scendere mentre l'attività economica va via via scemando.

Per gli investitori di tutto il mondo questa non è solo una preoccupazione regionale; è un evento macroeconomico sismico che avrà ripercussioni sui mercati dei capitali. Le implicazioni sono significative per gli investitori statunitensi, perché quando le economie globali vacillano, soprattutto in una grande e interconnessa come quella cinese, i capitali non solo svaniscono ma si spostano. Questo movimento avrà un impatto significativo sugli asset statunitensi, poiché i flussi si trasferiranno nuovamente in dollari e titoli del Tesoro americani. Questo riposizionamento globale dei capitali non è solo un sintomo di volatilità; riflette una profonda rivalutazione del rischio di fronte al deterioramento della fiducia nel sistema finanziario cinese.

La storia della Cina

Dobbiamo esaminare cosa sta succedendo in Cina per capire perché è importante. Bass ha sottolineato che il nocciolo della questione risiede nel settore immobiliare, il quale rappresenta circa il 30% del PIL cinese. Questa enorme quota dell'attività economica è sottoposta a forti pressioni, con costruttori immobiliari inadempienti, volumi di vendita in calo e prezzi delle case in calo nelle principali città. Tuttavia questo non dovrebbe sorprendere, poiché, dopo la crisi finanziaria, abbiamo scritto più volte della massiccia costruzione di “città fantasma” che erano responsabili della crescita della Cina all'epoca. Tuttavia l'effetto “frusta” di quella massiccia costruzione era inevitabile.

«Si trovano seduti su 60-70 milioni di case vuote. È uno schema Ponzi che sta finalmente crollando.»

~ Kyle Bass

Questa particolare bolla immobiliare, di dimensioni senza precedenti, sta scoppiando. Ciò crea pressioni deflazionistiche e mina il valore delle garanzie a supporto di ampie porzioni del sistema bancario ombra cinese.

Ad aggravare le cose c'è il rifiuto del Partito Comunista Cinese di attuare riforme che porterebbero maggiore trasparenza, disciplina del capitale e correzioni basate sul mercato. Invece di consentire ai mercati di stabilizzarsi, Pechino sta optando per il controllo attraverso restrizioni sui capitali, interventi statali e una maggiore sorveglianza dell'attività finanziaria.

«La Cina sta attraversando una crisi bancaria al rallentatore e il capitale sta facendo tutto il possibile per uscirne.»

~ Kyle Bass

Questa fuga di capitali è inevitabile e, come già detto, avrà un impatto significativo sull'economia e sui mercati finanziari degli Stati Uniti.

Capitale in cerca di un porto sicuro

Questo esodo di capitali nazionali ed esteri rimodellerà il panorama macroeconomico globale. Di recente abbiamo discusso di come la narrazione della “morte del dollaro” fosse ampiamente esagerata. Sebbene l'articolo approfondisca ulteriormente, ci sono cinque ragioni principali per cui il dollaro rimarrà la valuta di riserva mondiale:

1. Mancanza di una valuta alternativa valida;
2. Forza dell'economia statunitense;
3. Effetti di rete e inerzia finanziaria globale;
4. Portata limitata degli sforzi di de-dollarizzazione;
5. Resilienza di fronte ai cambiamenti politici.

Ma la cosa più importante è che il dollaro domina la composizione delle transazioni monetarie mondiali.

Il crollo economico della Cina non fa che intensificare la dipendenza del mondo dal dollaro per gli scambi commerciali e per l'accumulo di riserve di asset a sostegno di tali scambi.

In tempi di crisi gli investitori non cercano rendimento, cercano sicurezza. Nonostante gli Stati Uniti continuino a gestire squilibri fiscali e a mantenere elevati livelli di debito, il dollaro e i titoli del Tesoro americani rimangono i principali beni rifugio al mondo. Non esiste un'alternativa con la stessa profondità, liquidità e sicurezza percepita.

Il dollaro è destinato a salire

Con la fuga dei capitali dalla Cina e da altri mercati più rischiosi, il dollaro si rafforza. Non si tratta solo di un concetto teorico; è un andamento osservabile in ogni grande crisi degli ultimi decenni. La crisi finanziaria globale, la crisi del debito dell'Eurozona, la pandemia di COVID-19 e il conflitto tra Russia e Ucraina hanno tutti innescato un forte rialzo del dollaro, in quanto gli investitori cercavano la stabilità percepita del sistema finanziario statunitense.

Il meccanismo è semplice. Quando i capitali globali confluiscono nei dollari, spesso lo fanno direttamente nei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi. Questi ultimi rimangono il mercato del debito sovrano più profondo e liquido al mondo. Come discusso nell'articolo citato in precedenza, le banche centrali del resto del mondo stanno tagliando i tassi a uno dei ritmi più rapidi mai registrati:

La BCE ha tagliato i tassi in modo aggressivo, otto volte nell'ultimo ciclo, mentre la Federal Reserve è rimasta pressoché ferma. Il risultato è una divergenza che si sta sviluppando tra i rendimenti dei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi e, ad esempio, quelli dei Bund tedeschi.

È fondamentale capire perché questo sia così importante per gli investitori.

1. I rendimenti più elevati attraggono afflussi di capitali;
2. I titoli del Tesoro americani restano il deposito preferito di riserve estere;
3. I differenziali di rendimento determinano l'apprezzamento del dollaro.

In altre parole, all'aumentare della domanda dei titoli del Tesoro, i prezzi delle obbligazioni salgono e i rendimenti diminuiscono. Anche quando gli Stati Uniti registrano deficit record ed emettono ingenti quantità di nuovo debito per finanziare la spesa pubblica, la domanda estera può compensare la pressione al ribasso che questa offerta potrebbe altrimenti esercitare sui prezzi.

In un contesto globale stabile, ci si aspetterebbe che l'aumento delle emissioni di titoli del Tesoro spingesse i rendimenti al rialzo. Ma in un mondo in cui la seconda economia più grande è in declino e la fiducia nel suo sistema finanziario sta svanendo, i titoli del Tesoro americani trovano acquirenti non perché offrono rendimenti elevati, ma perché forniscono un ritorno garantito sul capitale. Questa distinzione è fondamentale. Gli investitori non allocano il capitale per la crescita, ma lo riallocano per la conservazione. Questo cambiamento comportamentale ha enormi implicazioni per i mercati.

L'impatto deflazionistico della Cina sugli Stati Uniti

Ha anche conseguenze per l'economia statunitense. Gli Stati Uniti hanno beneficiato enormemente dell'ascesa della Cina negli ultimi 20 anni. Durante tal periodo, gli Stati Uniti, attraverso le loro aziende, hanno potuto “esportare inflazione” e “importare deflazione” grazie alla manodopera a basso costo, alla crescente classe media cinese e alla vorace domanda di materie prime e beni cinesi. Dai macchinari industriali ai marchi di consumo di fascia alta, la Cina è stata un affidabile acquirente marginale per le esportazioni statunitensi e un partner produttivo per le catene di approvvigionamento statunitensi. Con l'indebolimento di questo motore, gli utili delle multinazionali statunitensi saranno sempre più sotto pressione.

Una Cina strutturalmente indebolita si traduce in un calo del commercio globale, una minore domanda di beni e servizi statunitensi e un rallentamento dei flussi di investimento da parte delle multinazionali. L'effetto domino sarà una minore crescita del PIL nominale negli Stati Uniti, anche se i consumi interni rimarranno resilienti. Di conseguenza i mercati inizieranno a scontare un tasso di crescita terminale inferiore per l'economia statunitense, in particolare nei settori esposti alla domanda internazionale.

Inoltre la discesa della Cina in deflazione potrebbe esportare pressioni disinflazionistiche a livello globale. Questo rischio probabilmente aumenterà le probabilità che la FED possa commettere un “errore transitorio”.

Questo legame tra economia e inflazione è evidente dall'Indice Composito Economico, che comprende quasi 100 dati hard e soft. Dopo il picco dell'attività economica post-pandemia, la crescita economica continua a scemare. Dato che l'inflazione è funzione esclusivamente della domanda e dell'offerta economica, non sorprende che continui a rallentare.

Considerando che gli Stati Uniti importano deflazione dalla Cina, il rischio di un impatto disinflazionistico più marcato da parte della Cina sugli Stati Uniti diventerà evidente nei dati economici. Come ha osservato lo stesso Bass:

Non si tratta solo di una recessione ciclica. Si tratta di un passaggio permanente verso una crescita reale pari a zero o negativa.

Questa valutazione ha profonde conseguenze per la Cina e per il modo in cui i decisori politici e gli investitori concepiscono la crescita globale nel prossimo decennio.

Conclusione

In questo contesto i tradizionali driver delle performance di mercato, della crescita degli utili, dell'aumento della produttività e degli investimenti di capitale passeranno in secondo piano rispetto alla stabilità macroeconomica e alla gestione del rischio. Gli investitori dovrebbero spostare la loro analisi da  “Dove posso far crescere il mio capitale?” a “Dove posso proteggerlo?”.

Per ora la risposta è il mercato dei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi. Nonostante i deficit fiscali e l'impasse politica, il capitale preferisce gli Stati Uniti a qualsiasi altra alternativa. Questo dovrebbe dirci qualcosa.

Come abbiamo già scritto molte volte:

Al capitale non interessa l'ideologia: interessa la fiducia, la liquidità e lo stato di diritto.

Quando la fiducia in una potenza economica importante come la Cina svanisce, i flussi di capitali che ne derivano non camminano, ma corrono.

Gli investitori farebbero bene a prestare attenzione. Il cambiamento in atto non è temporaneo, riflette un profondo riassetto della leadership economica globale e della tolleranza al rischio. Sebbene gli Stati Uniti si trovino ad affrontare numerose sfide strutturali, per ora restano la camicia più pulita in un mucchio di panni sporchi.

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

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

Norway’s largest peace organization, the Norwegian Peace Council, has announced that it would forego its traditional torchlight procession for the Nobel Peace Prize winner this year after widespread dissatisfaction with the Nobel Committee’s selection of Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado as this year’s laureate.

Eline H. Lorentzen, Chairwoman of the Peace Council, explained that:

We have great respect for the Nobel Committee and the Peace Prize as an institution, but as an organization we must also be true to our own principles and the broad peace movement we represent. We look forward to celebrating the Peace Prize again in the coming years.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee shocked the global pro-peace community with its selection of Machado as this year’s Prize winner, as the Venezuelan has over decades openly appealed to the US, Israel, and other countries to use military force to overthrow the sitting Venezuelan president and install her into power.

Not only has Machado urged the overthrow of the sitting Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, who the US Central Intelligence Agency has been given the green light by President Trump to hunt down, but she also openly called for the overthrow of Maduro’s predecessor, the late President Hugo Chavez.

While the solid majority worldwide across the political spectrum has reacted with horror at Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, “Peace Prize” winner Machado sent a letter to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu telling him that she “greatly appreciates his decisions and decisive actions in the war.”

In December, 2018, Machado sent a letter to Netanyahu requesting Israeli aid in overthrowing the Venezuelan government by force, an action that would undoubtedly result in many thousands of deaths and injuries.

The timing of the Nobel Committee selecting Machado, just as the United States is attacking boats off the coast of Venezuela and openly threatening to launch ground operations against Venezuela, has likewise raised more than a few eyebrows.

Ron Paul Institute chairman Ron Paul recently wrote:

Is the Nobel Peace Prize just another deep state, soft-power tool intended to boost the US global military empire? The timing of the award going to the relatively unknown Machado is suspicious. President Trump has parked an armada of warships off the Venezuelan coast as his aides openly talk about ‘decapitation’ strikes on the Venezuelan government. After the extrajudicial killing of some 20 civilians in his attacks on at least four boats off the Venezuelan coast, President Trump is openly bragging that no one dares launch a boat in the area.

As with its selection of US President Barack “drone strike” Obama and European “protester-savaging” Union as previous laureates, the Nobel Committee continues to embarrass itself and discredit the original intent of the Prize.

The Norwegian Peace Council deserves credit for sticking up for its principles in the face of powerful opposition. The Nobel Committee? Not so much.

This article was originally published on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Norwegian Peace Council Rejects Peace Prize Winner appeared first on LewRockwell.

“I think the early campus riots, such as Columbia, were exhilarating, but perhaps because I agreed with the goals; but in general and increasingly, I find all the demonstrations, bombings, etc. pains in the ass or worse,” Murray Rothbard, who boasted three degrees from the institution, wrote Frank Meyer in 1969 shortly after the older man’s son had attended the institution as a graduate student.  

In an earlier era, Meyer the Communist wore an unkempt mop of hair and described himself as a nonmonogamist. He inhabited worlds that included homosexuals, recreational drug users, political radicals, and others who, decades later, provided a culture shock to 1960s America. Rothbard, on the other hand, came up through the staid world of the political Right. Although lifestyle libertarians flourished in these years, Rothbard remained married to the same woman for 41 years and dressed like a frumpled academic.

Nevertheless, their correspondence, discovered in a warehouse during research for The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer, shows fissures, along with points of agreement, regarding the 1960s counterculture.   

Rothbard, of course, through activism in the Peace and Freedom Party, the launch of Left and Right, articles in Ramparts, and much else, actively courted anti-war activists, black-power militants, and others regarded on the political Left for the libertarian movement. He wondered to Meyer why William F. Buckley Jr. singled him out for criticism while still opening the magazine’s pages to Garry Wills even as he became a critic of Richard Nixon, the war, and conservatism. Wills, a disciple of Meyer’s who had frequently spent weekends and occasionally even holidays at the Meyer home during the late 1950s and early 1960s, provoked criticism in National Review from his mentor.   

Rothbard wrote Meyer of changing minds in the changing times, “It is interesting that, while there are a whole host of kids who have defected from the ‘Right,’ the only three ‘adults’ I can think of are myself, Karl Hess, and Garry—that’s darn few, all things considered.” 

Rothbard opposed Vietnam. Meyer supported it. Both opposed the draft for the war. Rothbard noted that he generally approved of Meyer’s anti-drug outlook. But differences characterized each man’s reasoning and strategy.  

“I really don’t see what the whole business has to do with ‘Western civilization’ (a concept that tends to crop up in your writings like King Charles’ Head),” he told Meyer. “What we have here is an assault on rational consciousness itself, on reason and reality and the very root of the ego’s grasp on and control of reality and real events.” 

Shortly after Dragnet’s famous “Blue Boy” episode aired in early 1967, Meyer wrote about LSD in a manner that Joe Friday and Bill Gannon might endorse. “Turn on the attack on civilizational restraints, tune in on the animal and instinctual, and drop out of civilized society,” he translated the famous catchphrase of drug guru Timothy Leary. “It epitomizes the rejection of structure, differentiation, order.” 

Rothbard largely took the side of the squares, too. He marveled at why otherwise intelligent youngsters “induce in themselves the symptoms of schizophrenia and insanity.” But he placed blame on the Right and Western Civilization for laying the groundwork for the craze. 

“The LSD cult is a direct lineal descendant of the Gerald Heard-mescaline craze which, as you might remember[,] swept the Right-wing about a dozen years ago,” he contended. “The whole thing is permeated with cheap mysticism and God-is-Universal Love hooey which, unfortunately, is a legacy from ‘Western civilization.’” 

This last point represented a reaction to Meyer’s repeatedly linking alcohol to the West and psychedelics to the Orient. He believed that alcohol lubricated thought while marijuana and other drugs anesthetized it. 

Paul Gottfried recalled a “very animated” Meyer holding court at Mory’s during an anniversary celebration for Yale’s Party of the Right in early 1968 on the subject of the proliferation of drugs. Meyer, Gottfried recalled, “thought it would destroy the morals of our society.” A member of the Party of the Right, David Zincavage, noted that libertarians within the group had begun experimenting with marijuana and other drugs. They challenged Meyer. “He thought that alcohol was a Western Civilization tradition,” Zincavage remembered, “and that pot was Oriental and planted degeneracy.”

Like Meyer, Rothbard recognized the permeation of the drug culture in libertarian circles. He regarded this as a baleful influence. 

“My major interest in this whole thing is that this epidemic has been very strong among the growing number of libertarian kids, who have been in the forefront of the whole craze, and hence in the ‘tune in-turn on-drop out’ pattern of fundamental instability and copping-out of real struggles and purposeful striving,” he wrote Meyer.

Meyer’s life in Woodstock allowed him to witness a prolonged dress rehearsal for this drugged-out part of the decade. On the sparsely populated mountain, the man who purchased an adjacent property in 1969 fled there to escape the harassment of “druggies,” “dropouts,” and other characters of the time and place. “I wanted to set fire to these people,” Bob Dylan later wrote. On the drug question, two 1960s phenomena—neighbors Bob Dylan and Frank Meyer—sang from the same sheet of music. 

Rothbard longed for a solution more proactive than merely moving near the top of a mountain to escape such people. 

“The big problem is how to get these kids out of all this, and I don’t see how preaching at them is going to do any good,” he wrote Meyer. “Quite the contrary, since preaching is one of the things they are reacting against. Furthermore, since they see that their parents are pro-war, pro-militarism, and anti-sex, and they have become just the opposite, the tendency also is to rebel against their parents’ aesthetic crotchets (e.g. short hair v. long hair) and to become pro-drugs because their parents are hysterically opposed. I would like to see a viable strategy developed to get these kids out of this self-destroying miasma, but I don’t see that any of us has the formula yet.” 

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post New Rothbard Letters Show He Rejected Both Drug Abuse and the Drug War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since 2024, I have been working diligently to present the extensive data that DMSO is a remarkable therapeutic that is uniquely suited to treat many highly challenging medical conditions due to its counteracting many root causes of disease (whereas, in contrast, vaccines cause a myriad of health issues by inducing those key drivers of illness). From this, I’ve compiled a series of articles synthesizing thousands of studies that have shown DMSO effectively treats:

• Strokes, paralysis, a wide range of neurological disorders (e.g., Down Syndrome and dementia), and many circulatory disorders (e.g., Raynaud’s, varicose veins, hemorrhoids), which I discussed here.
• A wide range of tissue injuries, such as sprains, concussions, burns, surgical incisions, and spinal cord injuries (discussed here).
• Chronic pain (e.g., from a bad disc, bursitis, arthritis, or complex regional pain syndrome), which I discussed here.
• A wide range of autoimmune, protein, and contractile disorders, such as scleroderma, amyloidosis, and interstitial cystitis (discussed here).
• A variety of head conditions, such as tinnitus, vision loss, dental problems, and sinusitis (discussed here).
• A wide range of internal organ diseases (discussed here).
• Many different respiratory disorders, including asthma and COPD (discussed here)
• Many different gastrointestinal disorders, such as bowel inflammation, cirrhosis, and pancreatitis (discussed here)
• A wide range of skin conditions, such as burns, varicose veins, acne, hair loss, ulcers, skin cancer, and many autoimmune dermatologic diseases (discussed here).
• Many challenging infectious conditions, including chronic bacterial infections, herpes, and shingles (discussed here).
• Many aspects of cancer (e.g., many of cancer’s debilitating symptoms, making cancer treatments more potent, greatly reducing the toxicity of conventional therapies, and turning cancer cells back into normal cells), which I discussed here.

Since the evidence in those articles (along with one on how DMSO can be synergistically combined with pharmaceuticals and another on how DMSO combines with natural therapies) made a compelling case for the use of DMSO, many readers opted to start using it. Many of them, in turn, had remarkable improvements which caused them to recommend DMSO to their peers, and because of all those successes, a widespread interest in DMSO has now emerged.

On one hand, this has been quite surprising to me as the information I publicized has been widely available for decades, but (possibly due to it being impossible to profit off DMSO because of how little it costs) most of the people exposed to this series were not even aware this therapy existed, let alone what DMSO could do. Conversely, the groundswell of interest is not surprising as it’s nearly identical to what happened when DMSO was first discovered in the 1960s and it rapidly became the most popular drug in America—particularly since relatively minimal progress has been made on most of the “incurable” conditions it cured back then.

User DMSO Reports

Because of DMSO’s high degree of efficacy, the moment I began the series, I started being flooded with testimonials from readers of the remarkable improvements DMSO had created for them. Before long, I realized I was in a similar situation to what I’d been in throughout COVID-19.

I have long believed one of the core strategies the ruling class always follows is to establish rigid hierarchical systems that have dominion over critical facets of society and then buy out the top of the pyramid, as that provides a relatively low-cost way to control the entire society. In the case of medicine, this has translated to having pharmaceutical compliant individuals (through industry funding and media complicity) be anointed as experts who reinforce the profitable orthodoxy alongside having medical journals only publish things which cater to the existing vested interests.

Because of this, things that are “controversial” (threatening vested interests) are rarely published in a “credible” medium, and as a result, anyone who tries to advocate for them is not listened to; instead, they are chastised for endorsing “unproven” and unscientific beliefs.

When the COVID vaccines hit the market, I had expected they would cause a significant number of chronic issues that would take years to be recognized—so I was quite shocked to be immediately flooded with reports across the country of severe reactions of all types from the vaccine. Because of this, I felt I needed to log them as I knew injuries like these would never get published in medical journals and I wanted to have some type of proof that vaccine injuries were real, so in the future I could present accurate information to skeptical parties. I hence spent an inordinate amount of time interviewing those involved and compiling all of them and after unexpectedly gaining a Substack audience, I published that log, and it went viral because my small sample accurately represented the pattern of vaccine injuries everyone was seeing around them and because more than a year into the COVID vaccine rollout, no one had done anything similar—despite the massive demand for this type of information.

In the process of doing that, I had also received a lot of reports of individuals who appeared to be being injured by COVID vaccine shedding—despite this being “impossible” based on the purported design of the vaccines. As the reports, like those for the COVID-19 vaccine injuries, were consistent in character (and like the vaccines many affected by shedding were understandably desperate for information on the topic) I decided to spend a year compiling thousands of those reports as I knew there would never be a journal willing to touch the subject. Following this, I then produced a synthesis of that data which showed there were clear repeating patterns to mRNA shedding and provided the critical mechanisms to explain this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon. That, in turn, was an inordinate amount of work to do, but succeeded and made many realize shedding is a real risk of the mRNA technology—something which will be critical for opposing future attempts to inject the population with experimental gene therapies.

In the case of DMSO, as I started receiving all of these reports (at a time when I had essentially finished the shedding project), I realized that I had access to a unique dataset that had not previously been available. More importantly, because there were so many different things that DMSO could treat, a dataset like this would likely be the only place much of that therapeutic data could ever be compiled (as no one would ever get around to conducting studies on many of those uses—particularly since the current academic publishing climate is much more hostile to publishing unorthodox research now than it was fifty years ago).

So, over the last 13 months, one of my primary projects has been to compile all the reports I’ve received (which I did in the comments here), and I presently have 4,721 comments—of which I think roughly 3,000 are unique stories of therapeutic benefit people have experienced. In turn, my plan is to eventually compile and synthesize all of that, but as doing that will take at least a month, I’ve held off until the end of the series (so I wouldn’t have to redo it with new data that was subsequently received).
Note: my general sense from all the testimonials I’ve received is that between 80-90% of users have a positive response to using DMSO (which is frankly extraordinary), with lower rates (50%) being seen for certain issues which are harder to correctly treat with DMSO, and give or take 0% success rates being seen for issues DMSO is not thought to treat (suggesting the sample I’m observing is representative of real life data).

Within those comments, while most of the reports I’ve received are consistent with what DMSO is recognized to do (e.g., rapidly eliminating debilitating pain that nothing else had worked on), some were quite extraordinary and not what I’d expected to come across.

Note: as fate had it, Murray lived about 3 hours away from Rebecca Cunningham, the Texas-based documentary film maker who cured her neighbor’s terminal COPD with nebulized DMSO, after which millions saw Dan’s COPD story.1,2 As DMSO changed her life, she is currently collecting other DMSO testimonials on her Rumble channel and kindly agreed to travel to Murray to film this. If you have a story to share and are ever passing through Wimberley or visiting the hill country in Texas, please reach out to her.

In compiling these reports, I was struck by how many were for the eyes, by how well DMSO worked across an extensive range of eye conditions, and by the fact that, in the majority of cases, it provided better results than could be expected from existing ophthalmology options.

Note: the only well-recognized ophthalmologic conditions I did not receive reports on were amblyopia, strabismus, diabetic retinopathy, keratitis, optic neuritis, retinal detachment, retinopathy of prematurity, chalazions, central retinal vein occlusion (although a reader’s branched retinal vein occlusion responded to DMSO), and eye cancers—many of which, as I will show in this article, existing data sources suggest do respond to DMSO.

Later, while translating the discoveries of the German community, I learned their data matched that of the readers here:

One of the first new adopters of DMSO (circa 2012), began successfully using highly diluted DMSO for eye treatments in his practice. This led to a network of practitioners using DMSO for eye health, accumulating substantial experience, and, in many cases, treating eye issues where the cause could not be determined.

In general, there are a surprising number of successful reports using DMSO eye drops for a wide variety of eye symptoms and diseases. So many, in fact, that I now consider the DMSO eye solution an exceptional “eye care.”

Many users (especially those with heavy screen time) apply DMSO preventively to maintain eye freshness, improve tear quality, and reduce night glare. Positive effects, including improved vision, better tear film, fresher eyes, and reduced night glare, are often reported after the first few applications, enhancing overall eye comfort and function—including in people whom ophthalmologists did not diagnose with any eye conditions.

The positive effects are often reported after the first few applications, but I consider [low dose eye drops] a longer-term option. Due to the excellent diagnostic results and the complete absence of adverse effects from low dose drops (including results from ophthalmologists for a wide range of eye disorders) I increasingly view DMSO eye drops as a preventative measure, eye care for those with (still) healthy eyes, since modern life, particularly excessive screen time, places significant demands on our eyes.

Note: the above was extracted from an AI-generated summary of hundreds of hours of non-English lectures, then further condensed by me and hence not a direct quote (but one that accurately represents the author’s statements).

While this might be difficult to believe, consider a parallel situation. Another umbrella remedy I have been deeply impressed by, ultraviolet blood irradiation (which has many similar therapeutic properties to DMSO), has a vast volume of literature demonstrating its clinical value—including for numerous immensely challenging to treat diseases. Yet, virtually none of the medical profession even knows this therapy exists.

For this reason, we are currently sorting through thousands of UVBI studies, including dozens of studies (many of which were conducted with hundreds of patients) which show UVBI treats a myriad of challenging ophthalmologic conditions such as:

blepharitis,1 keratitis,1 corneal inflammation,1 herpes zoster ophthalmicus,1 traumatic eye infection,1 uveitis,1,2,3,4,5 iridocyclitis,1,2 choroiditis,1 chorioretinopathy,1,2,3,4 choroidal and chorioretinal dystrophy,1,2 macular degeneration,1 retinitis pigmentosa,1,2 retinal contusion,1 retinal ischemia,1,2 retinal and fundus hemorrhages,1,2,3,4 retinal artery and vein occlusions,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 diabetic retinopathy,1 ischemic optic neuropathy,1,2,3,4,5 optic neuritis,1,2,3 optic nerve atrophy (traumatic or inflammatory),1,2,3 encephalopathic vision loss1

Note: in this article, each superscipt number links to either a reader’s story or an applicable study—like the many I listed above (which the ophthalmology profession does not realize exists).

As such, the purpose of this article will be to highlight exactly how DMSO is transforming ophthalmology, along with the supporting data.

Note: the best review paper on DMSO’s uses in ophthalmology (which is an excellent resource to provide to physicians who are skeptical of using DMSO for the eyes) can be read here.

Raed the Whole Article

The post DMSO Heals the Eyes and Transforms Ophthalmology appeared first on LewRockwell.